Why do Atheists care about Religion?

[cosmik debris]

I just found this on YouTube and thought I would share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg&eurl=

You don't have to like it if you don't want to.

[WindRavenX]

1. Um, I certainly don't

I just want religion far, far far away from my government.

[Warpy]

2. If people would stop trying to cram it down my throat

and robbing my tax money to pay for it, I doubt I'd give it much thought at all.

[WindRavenX]

5. That's why I just zone those people out

But then again, like I should talk: I'm going to be moving to Utah. I should get used to ut x(

[Retired AF Dem]

8. "and robbing my tax money to pay for it"

I didn't know any of our tax money is going to religion. I have worked in some European countries that I had to pay a religious tax even though I haven't been in a Church since 1977.

[Warpy]

10. Two words:

"FAITH BASED."

[Retired AF Dem]

12. Just words

I have paid income taxes specifically to religion. So far in the U.S I have not.

[cosmik debris]

16. A related story in GD-Politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3010212

[pop goes the weasel]

17. they are not "just words"

The New York Times just ran an http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html?hp&ex=1165726800&en=67e4f649d71f6350&ei=5094&partner=homepage">article about the use of tax money to enforce religious indoctrination in prisons. While you might think that religion could be a good thing for convicts (and no doubt, for some it is) it is not a good thing for even prisoners to be able to receive fair treatment only if they adhere to the religious practices of their keepers.

[Warpy]

18. Then you have some reading to do, don't you?

Just because it isn't listed on the form doesn't mean your tax money isn't going to churches playing politics. It does.

Time to get educated, I think.

[NMMNG]

23. "Faith Based Initiative"

Our tax dollars are going to a multitude of religious groups that provide (or claim to provide) social services/charity. These groups don't have to comply with any of the hiring/employment regulations, safety regulations or other oversights similar providers have to comply with by virtue of the fact that they are "religious", yet they get the same money from taxpayers.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. Why then, are churches tax exempt from property tax?

Why shouldn't they have to pay their fair share? MY taxes are higher because churches don't pay taxes. Billions and billions of dollars in real estate remains untaxed because of the unfair exemption given religious groups.

[papau]

11. "cram it down my throat" ? - "cram atheism down my throat on DU?" ?-nah- no DUer could feel that way

But I shouldn't even be posting in this "Religion" forum as I am religious and this place is only for atheists to proclaim their faith.

Any religious post will be joined by atheist who do not want to discuss the fine points of the original poster's religious belief - they will just want to destroy the thread - or add value if you like those words rather than destroy - by saying over and over how strongly they hold their atheist faith and how wrong are all the other faiths. Per the Harris poll 6% of the population are atheist - contract to the video's claim of 15% (45 m) - but they sure do take over this forum.

The above is not aimed at you Warpy - or indeed at anyone -

the phrase just hit a hot button.

As I said I feel I should not be here in this forum under DU's standard of practice -

Thank God I leave now to take a few weeks off with the grandkids at Christmas.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. What would the forum look like in your ideal world? n/t

[NMMNG]

25. A big echo chamber for atheist haters

[beam me up scottie]

46. Yep. And a place where plagiarism isn't pointed out.

At least the atheists are honest about what they post here.

[cosmik debris]

14. I'm not technologically savvy enough

to have embedded this video in my post, so I can sympathize with your technological deficiency in not knowing how to use the ignore button. But, in fact, it is incredibly easy to avoid ALL atheists in this forum with one click per atheist. Perhaps you should contact some of your more enlightened friends and learn how that is possible.

[Warpy]

19. "atheist faith?"

:rofl:

Sometimes you just can't add anything.

[jgraz]

26. The flip side of "creation science"

I'm hearing this all the time now from religionists. The attempt to elevate their beliefs to a science failed, so they now want to drag atheism into the realm of irrationality.

[beam me up scottie]

45. They are getting their own fundie dictionary at fstdt, too.

It's so cute. :D

[EvolveOrConvolve]

65. Perhaps atheists would be less angry

If you quit with the bullshit about the atheist "faith". I've NEVER seen an atheist proclaim loudly about "how strongly they hold their atheist faith" or "how wrong are all the other faiths."

I sense a bit of projection.

[tridim]

3. That's the key

Especially unwritten rules like, to win the Presidency you must be religious, or at least give the appearance that you are.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. good catch cosmik

And I care, too. Good points raised there.

blue laws, boy scouts, holding of public office, - shit, everything religion touches, it screws up.

[sarge43]

6. I'm not an atheist

Agnostic leaning toward deism, but I am very fed up with hearing that because I don't practice a formal religion, specifically Christianity, I'm somehow morally bankrupt. I can imagine atheists are sick of it, too.

[stopbush]

7. I can only speak for myself, but I "care" about righting the evils that

religion visits on the world.

One may as well ask why a well-fed atheist would care about hunger.

[and-justice-for-all]

9. I think of it more as a CONCERN....

...and not a CARE. I could careless about religion, but since those fundmentalist Naziis seem to think that everyone needs to follow their kult, what appears to some that Atheist "care" about religion is actually resistance.

I will not be indoctrinated by ANY organized kult ideology, religion is the most distructive human force on the planet, believeing in invisible deities and taking their exisitence on "faith" does not work for me and those who do believe in such rubbish are delusional.

[wryter2000]

15. As an agnostic who supports the people of faith here

I have to say that I absolutely agree that discrimination against athiests/agnostics is an abomination.

On the other hand, I don't see why atheists have to cram atheism down the throat of people of faith. As long as they're not inserting themselves into government (and the people of faith at DU aren't), let them follow their faith in peace.

And there is an atheist/agnostic forum here. Why do some people feel compelled to come to the religions forum to put down believers?

[Evoman]

20. ........

[Az]

22. Well ya see

The Religion/Theology forum was created specifically for discussions of religion. From any perspective. It was created in large part because theists and atheists would get into rather big brawls in the GD and other forums. Yeah, we atheists and our own forum and the theists have their own forums (with plenty of flavors for the various denoms). But the Religion/Theology forum exists for members of all sides of the issue to come and thrash things out.

[trotsky]

28. Can you give some specific examples...

of atheists trying to "cram atheism down the throat of people of faith"?

Are there atheists leading the charge to take bibles away? Tear down churches?

Or is it those dozens of atheist TV shows on Sunday morning telling you that as a believer, you're morally inferior and the source of all problems?

[JNelson6563]

37. Amen!

Well said.

Julie

[Goblinmonger]

29. If you want an echo chamber

there are groups for your particular religion, too. Why is it the atheists that need to be banished to the group while the theists get to stay in the forum?

[immoderate]

30. There are seven religious groups on DU.

There's only one for atheists and agnostics.

Atheists don't knock on your doors on Saturday morning, or preach on street corners, but we do (some of us) have a message. I think many come to this forum to hear points of view different than their own.

Why limit it to believers? As DUers, we all have a commitment to an enlightened social outlook, which bonds us and provides the basis for some trust. Where else can believers get exposure to discussion with atheists with a social conscience?

--IMM

[irislake]

21. Reaction formation?

[bananas]

24. LOL - certainly, at least for some. nt

[beam me up scottie]

43. "Bunch of uncultured low-lifes."

"No wonder we keep losing elections."

How freaked out you would be if one of us said that about christians?

[bananas]

70. I wouldn't be freaked out at all.

I'm not religious, and wouldn't call myself either an atheist or a theist.

You took that quote out of context. The full post was about how this forum seems to be dominated by atheists who prefer to flame christians than to discuss anything substantive. The post ended with that quote as a sarcastic way of driving the point home. I didn't use the sarcasm smiley, and some of you took it literally.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Then apologize for your insults.

I'll wait.

[bananas]

88. I apologize.

I apologize for any insults I made.
I'm sorry for anything I said that hurt your feelings.
Please accept my apology.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Thank you.

I have no idea why you think so little of us, but maybe you'll change your opinion if you spend more time in here.

Most of the anger you see in here is reactionary, unlike the threads that get thrown in here from GD.

[trotsky]

27. Wow. How insulted does a believer feel...

when an atheist compares their religion to mental illness?

Yet you don't see any problems with the reverse. Classy.

[irislake]

32. Either extreme

is irrational as far as I'm concerned. You know what they say about maturity being "the capacity to tolerate ambiguity".

[Evoman]

33. So then theists are extreme too, right?

The opposite of atheism is not fundamentalism.

[trotsky]

35. What's extreme about an atheistic position?

Perhaps you could more carefully qualify your words.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Extreme atheist = Screaming "There is no god, goddammit!" before blowing themselves up in a church.

Happens all the time.

[irislake]

34. Hey and it's "classier" to keep an open mind

than to take and extreme position either way. About religion I can keep an open mind. About George W Bush I am totally irrational to the point of foaming at the mouth. Nobody's perfect.

[trotsky]

36. Maybe you can point out some of these "extreme" atheists.

And demonstrate how they are influencing policy and decision-making like their extreme opposites.

[irislake]

38. I'm thinking of Scientific Fundamentalists

who have written books like THE SELFISH GENE and so on. Scuse if I don't look up the name of scientist who is plugging a book about no god right now. (He was on The Colbert Report recently.) I can understand why scientists get VERY riled about Darwin and evolution when you consider the incredible numbers of religious fandamentalists in your country who seriously don't believe the theory of evolution. I was raised as an agnostic. My mother was American and she was a complete non-believer. At university I read my Bertie Russell and all that turned rabidly athiest. As a student of literature I am interested in myth,religion and so on and have read all the important stuff (Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Gospels -- you name it.) I have never believed there was a historical Jesus and as a student of literature know that the Bible is full of myths and legends. One of the best books I have read about Christianity proves that the entire New Testament came lock stock and barrel from the Egyptian myth of Horus. (Old Testament too I think.) Every detail including the three wise men manger etc. Another book makes a good case for religion starting as a mushroom mystery cult. (A VERY good case.)(Soma.)Mind-altering substances are the beginning of religious belief. But to try to cut to the chase -- in my forties I went back to school to study psychology and began a lifelong study of dreams. Thirty-two years now of research. I have collected thousands of dreams of my own, my family, friends and so on and read every academic work on the subject you can name. After maybe five years I began to record "paranormal experiences" precognitive dreams, telepathic dreams. Loony land to rational reductionists. I have come to agree after long study mainly with Jung's theories. Parapsychologists by legitimate experiments have demonstrated the existence of telepathy and precognitive dreams over and over. Mainstream science still refuses to accept legitimate experiments done as long ago as the 40s. Establishment scientists scoff at parapsychologists. It is almost career suicide to embrace belief in telepathy and precognition. My proofs of precognitive dreams and telepathy are overwhelming. Lots of dream researchers have detailed many examples in books. (See Robert Van de Castle's OUR DREAMING MIND.) Then somebody like Francis Crick, his ego inflated by his Nobel Prize for discovering the DNA molecule, takes up consciousness studies and with paltry data decides dreams are meaningless and are the brain's way of discarding garbage. I am embarrassed for him.I expect scientists to be scrupulously honest and completely unbiased. That's naive because you only have to see how many will lie for Big Pharma and for global warming deniers and who are willing to be unethical even for no financial gain -- just career enhancement. There are probably almost as many charlatan scientists as there are fortune tellers and mediums who prey on credulous New Agers. Edward Mitchel after his astronaut career went into consciousness studies. Sandford University has done interesting work on "remote viewing". These paranormal events are real and the current paradigm of materialism needs to be revised to account for it. Not denied. As for why I think it matters --- I think science has taken us too far into a universe that seems to be meaningless -- but may not be and has produced a technological nightmare on this planet. Go ahead and say you do not believe there is a divine force and a meaningful universe but it's flat-out pig-headed to say you have proof of it. When was in my twenties scientists absolutely insisted that animals were not capable of reasoning or using tools. Flat out arrogance. They could not bring themselves to say, "We do not think they can reason." And now we know they even have language. That's my speel.

[irislake]

39. I want to add

I don't think the scientist who wrote THE SELFISH GENE (Richard Dawkins?)and that other chap who was on Colbert are charlatans. I just think they are so turned off by religious nuts that they have gone pig-headedly to the other extreme. Oh and about Mitchel -- he did some experiments in space to prove that telepathy had nothing to do with physical distance. He was transformed by his experience in space and rejected the rational reductionist model of reality.

[cyborg_jim]

40. Ugh.

"Parapsychologists by legitimate experiments have demonstrated the existence of telepathy and precognitive dreams over and over. "

Um no they haven't.

"There are probably almost as many charlatan scientists as there are fortune tellers and mediums who prey on credulous New Agers."

And yet you seem to believe there are people running about there who are telepathic and precognitive - and that the so-called 'scientists' pushing those ideas aren't charlatans.

"These paranormal events are real and the current paradigm of materialism needs to be revised to account for it."

No, these paranormal events aren't real. No properly constructed experiment has ever shown any accuracy beyond mere chance. Ever.

"As for why I think it matters --- I think science has taken us too far into a universe that seems to be meaningless"

Ah, so you don't like what the universe is so you want to tell it what it is.

"When was in my twenties scientists absolutely insisted that animals were not capable of reasoning or using tools. Flat out arrogance."

Yes, stemming, no doubt, from the idea that we are inherently special.

Which is what you seem to be pushing here.

But I would love to hear the 'scientific' explanations for telepathy and precognition though.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Nice job.

I wouldn't have had the patience to break that down into anything resembling coherence.

It's funny, most hateful science bashers on DU are actually insanely jealous pseudo-scientists with a grudge.

Same thing with the angry "ex"-atheists.

They were never scientists or atheists to begin with.

[irislake]

52. We will have to agree to disagree

I do NOT think people are more special than animals. Plenty of scientists do.

I am not religious I am agnostic. I think it is as egocentric to say "I am all there is and this is all there is" as it is to say "I am so special and wonderful that I will survive death."

I think science and technology is pretty nice but I don't think scientists' wonderful weapons of murder and mass destruction have improved the quality of life on earth. Don't get me started on what science has done to the planet. Did I say religion would improve life? No I said science has its downside.

Hey, who sez I have to explain telepathy and precognition? That's for the scientists to explain ---- after they find it possible to acknowledge the existence of such events.

As for your certainly that telepathy and precognition do not exist. Congratulations. You have plenty of genius hard-nosed rational reductionists scientists who will agree with you right to the bitter end. No amount of credible evidence could possibly budge them.

[cyborg_jim]

54. Reply (lack of imagination)

I think science and technology is pretty nice but I don't think scientists' wonderful weapons of murder and mass destruction have improved the quality of life on earth.

Understanding is a three-edged sword.

Don't get me started on what science has done to the planet.

Science has not done anything. It's an idea - not an actor.

Hey, who sez I have to explain telepathy and precognition? That's for the scientists to explain ---- after they find it possible to acknowledge the existence of such events.

Well, since you have said that a materialistic view of reality would have to be rethought I would assume you have at least some concept of what would have to change in our understanding of reality in order for telepathy and precognition to be viable phenomena. Because you must clearly realise that they are totally infeasible in the current scientific understanding - and not infeasible in a 'woah, quantum physics is weird' way but infeasible in a homoeopathy way.

That's for the scientists to explain ---- after they find it possible to acknowledge the existence of such events.

They don't happen. Don't need to acknowledge them. No serious investigation has ever found anything other than charlatans who tried their luck and the deluded who really believed in their own powers.

No amount of credible evidence could possibly budge them.

That is the resort of the believer in Truth Faith TM. The scientist will bludgeon one with high quality evidence until I bleed. Please try. Telepathy would be cool - I'd want it. I don't disbelieve because I desire the universe to be a particular way. I'd rather deal with reality as is - it's only the believers who will concoct fantastical reasons as to why I won't adopt some belief out of the desire of wanting to avoid the evidence because of some conclusion I will dislike. In short you might as well tell me I want to continue my sinning ways because adopting telepathy would affect that.

It's a stupid argument when believers use it - it's equally as stupid when an agnostic does. Please try again.

[cyborg_jim]

73. Nothing?

[trotsky]

41. Wow.

Paragraphs are your friend, you know.

I'm having a very tough time comprehending how someone like Richard Dawkins could even be remotely considered a mirror opposite of someone like Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden. And how any prominent scientist seems to have an "inflated ego" in your book. Well, at least they do if they have a different opinion than you.

As far as having proof that a "divine force" doesn't exist, well, I could offer some up if you had a falsifiable experiment to detect it. Do you?

[irislake]

50. Sorry about the lack of paragraphs.

No I don't think Richard Dawkins has an inflated ego. But I think the position of the rational reductionist is just as egocentric as the view that humans are so important that they will survive death. Is it not egocentric to say "I am all there is and there is nothing else but this life and I know that absolutely"?

I did mean to say that Francis Crick's ego must have become inflated enough by his Nobel Prize for discovering the DNA molecule that he felt he was an expert on dreams having collected very little data. Dreams are NOT meaningless. Psychiatrists use them because they yield plenty of information. (I know you'll laugh and say psychiatrists are nuts.) Research into dreams is a huge field now and very few agree with Francis Crick.

As for hard scientists like Dawkins of course they are not in any way opposite to those religious nuts except in intelligence and in rigorous use of logic. And when it comes to your country, considering the level of ignorance --- if the numbers of people who reject Darwin's theories is any measure of that -- I can understand why scientists might consider religion to be a real threat to enlightenment.

I do not think Dawkins or Crick are charlatans. Pure scientists rarely are. But there have been some instances of pure scientists with a political axe to grind rigging experiments. Others maybe hoped for fame. And prejudice can bias experiments.

My gripe when it comes to Dawkins and other distinguished rationalists is when they maintain that there most certainly is no divine force or meaning in the universe rather than saying that nothing in their experience persuades them that there is and that they doubt it very much. So why say they are certain? Why be athiest rather than keeping a neutral stance?

I was always annoyed by scientists who, no doubt disgusted by pet lovers and sentimental folk, absolutely stated animals didn't use tools or were capable of reason. Now they have had to admit they were wrong. There are plenty of scientists today who deny that animals experience emotions. Why do they not say, "I do not believe because no proof is good enough for me so far that animals experience emotions". I think that's irrational.

As for proof that there is a divine force did I say that? Could anybody prove that? I have read all the Near-Death Experience books by medical people and scientists that I could lay hands on and having done so I lean towards thinking that there COULD be life after death. A lot of those books are rubbish of course. It's interesting that very little children -- toddlers who have barely learned to speak come up with some of the main features of the NDE after being brought back to life. But how can an honest scientist prove that such ubiquitous experiences described in NDEs do NOT indicate that consciousness survives? It's my personal belief from my private findings that consciousness is not confined to the brain. Yup I've read the scientists who have "proved" that it is. I think they are wrong but they may be right.
I did not say the I have proof there is a divine force. I said telepathic experiences and precognitive dreams have to be accounted for when constructing a model of reality. Rational reductionism does not account for paranormal events and simply denies that they exist. I think that's pig-headed.

Dreams SEEM to come from some autonomous source and may well do. I now lean towards believing Jung was correct. Why not keep an open mind?

[beam me up scottie]

51. An open mind? You didn't even read the fucking book.

My gripe when it comes to Dawkins and other distinguished rationalists is when they maintain that there most certainly is no divine force or meaning in the universe rather than saying that nothing in their experience persuades them that there is and that they doubt it very much. So why say they are certain? Why be athiest rather than keeping a neutral stance?

"athiest"?

You don't even know how to spell the word, it's no wonder you have no clue what the definition of atheism is or what we believe or don't.

And yet you have the nerve to accuse atheists of being irrational and close minded.

Go back to whatever it is you were doing, I'd hate to wake you up.

[irislake]

56. Before I say goodbye

I have to say that you sound just a wee bit like a freeper. So long.

[beam me up scottie]

59. No, freepers spread disinfo about atheists like you do.

You're part of the problem, no matter where you live.

[trotsky]

53. I am sorry that rational inquiry has not confirmed your pet beliefs.

That seems to be the source of your hostile attitude toward those who don't accept what you believe.

I think others have much more open minds than you give them credit for - they just require valid evidence, not the sort of gee-that's-neat type of anecdotal or inconclusive "evidence" you accept. That doesn't mean they have inflated egos or are pig-headed. It just means they have standards they require evidence to meet. Your evidence does not meet them.

[irislake]

60. How in the heck do you know?

You don't know what evidence I have gathered in 600 notebooks. And doubt if you have read any of the hundreds of dream research books recording such events. Most of these books are written by researchers with Phds in Psychology. Until you have read them how can you judge? I have read Dawkins and so on. At least I read the other points of view. Here is one example from thousands from my notes. There are twelve members of my dream study group. One member began the meeting:
"I want to tell you a dream my son had." She related a dream about her son seeing the concord take off. He then saw it flip over and crash onto a white building." She said her son's father-in-law was involved in a four million dollar deal and did we think the dream might mean that the deal would go belly-up and crash."
Seasoned dreamers know that plane crashes are a dime-a-dozen in dreams and are usually metaphorical. We never considered it might refer to a real plane crash in external reality. We all concurred that his father-in-law's business deal would go kaput. (It didn't)Moved on. Forgot about it. She came in to a meeting two weeks later said she thought she was getting senile because when the concord crashed, just the way her son's dream described it, he had no recollection of having had the dream. And none of us remembered her telling us, or recalled it when we learned about the crash. So she asked me to look up in my notes and I had recorded it and the dialogue:
"We have to consider if it's a precognitive dream and there will be a real crash. It's not just a generic plane. Maybe the concord will crash."

"Don't be silly. Since when does the concord ever crash?"

You could write that off as a fluke and I have absolutely no doubt that you will do so. But note the caution and care experienced dreamers took before leaping to conclusions and how easy it is to overlook precognitive dreams. The dreamer forgot dreaming it, we forgot hearing it, and there it was recorded in my notes.

Here's another. One member of the group has a column in a local newspaper and he interprets people's dreams. Gets this dream. The dreamer is in the financial district in New York. Suddenly two tall buildings begin two shake and fire breaks out in windows near the top. To escape the fire people jump to their deaths. Then the buildings collapse onto their dead bodies. For a long time afterwards there are repercussions."

The dreamer was a rural Canadian and had never been to New York and had no plans to go there. He was worried that the dream meant that he would experience a huge personal financial loss and was worried about his investment portfolio. He feared he would be wiped out and would be poor for a long time. The columnist replied that it was possible but more likely there was going to be a stock market crash in New York sometime in the future. Never thought there was a serious possiblity that buildings in New York would physically collapse. It was unthinkable. After 9/11 he did not recall the dream. I don't know if the dreamer did. But I had saved a pile of newspapers with his colmuns to clip out and did so two years after 9/11. Of course the date was on the newspaper. Again you can pooh pooh it as a fluke. Those are only two examples of thousands.

When it comes to my personal life and those of others who keep detailed records I have concluded -- as have others -- that almost all dreams predict future events. It's as if the unconscious lays down a blueprint which is used to construct external events.

I gather this material for my own pleasure. I think it's very insulting of you to sneer at my conclusions made after 32 years of meticulous research.

I belong to the local Jungian Society. Our next speaker will be Carlyle T. Smith who is a psychology professor at Trent University. He will retire at the end of this year. He has had a sleep lab and studied dreams for more than 20 years. He is a world recognized expert on demonstrating that learning material is assimilated in sleep and that it is better to sleep than cram before an exam. It would be "career suicide" and he would never get funding for research into paranormal events. However, privately he acknowledges that he has got the same massive evidence of telepathy and precognition as other dream journalists have. After retirement he will come out with it.

Other researchers at Univerity of Virginia and Duke have got away with some research as long as they mainly concentrated on work that wouldn't conflict with the mainstream establishment paradigm. Read THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTUIONS to see what tremendous resistance mainstream scientists will erect against research that contradicts the status quo. They can irrationally defend their turf to the last ditch and pooh pooh any evidence of an alternate description of reality. And do!

Great scientists like Einstein and Bohm didn't agree with Francis Crick that dreams were garbage but used them to solve problems. Dreams are mainly problem solving. Einsten got E=Mc2 from a dream. Lots of scientists regularly consult their dreams for problem solving. One of your great inventors Benjamin Franklin got most if not all of his inventions from dreams.
Your president Lincoln had a dream of a coffin draped in black and the White House in deep mourning. He asked, "Who is dead?" A voice said, "The president has been assasinated." That was well documented.
At Aberfan there were dozens of dreams that predicted the disaster. One child had said the day before she went to school and died, "Mummy, mummy, I dreampt that I went to school and something black came down all over it." Why would the mother lie about that? She was beside herself with grief. "Why didn't I listen to my child and keep her home that day" she mourned.
I doubt if this has made the slightest dent in your disbelief but what do you know when you haven't read all the available material or listened to your own dreams? Your dreams are for a reason. Francis Crick is wrong. But you can see the tremendous prejudice there is by mainstream science against even funding such research. And as I said, "It's career suicide to acknowledge such belief." just look at the ridicule I have got. And thanks very much I don't think it was deserved at all.
Oh --- and one last example. My daughter lives with an abusive psychopath. No friends or relatives have been able to persuade her to leave. More than a year ago I dreamed that the psychopath would assault someone on the job site (he's a longshoreman) and get fired. As a result he would have no income and would have to sell the house he shared with my daughter and she would then take her money and leave him at last. I emailed that to myself to date it. It has happened as I dreamed it. Mailed it to my other kids to prove I had it a year in advance. They were impressed. "Bang on, mum. God you really nailed it." And that was only ONE dream. The vast majority of others have also unfolded as predicted. Well ---- I'm just a little old lady living like a hermit in the woods. At least my kids are persuaded and also I have the support of the Jungian Society. Never again will I try to make a dent in the thinking of an American atheist. The climate you live in is too hostile to your beliefs to do anything but defend your position.

[cosmik debris]

61. Did you know about the $$ reward for proving the paranormal

You could make a million dollars if you could prove JUST ONE of your claims of the paranormal.

http://skepdic.com/randi.html

Of course you can't, so the money is safe. But that won't stop you from ranting!

[trotsky]

63. Time and time again, the "evidence" of which you speak...

has been shown to be either bogus, or completely explainable using conventional means. For every dream you've supposedly had that predicted an event accurately, how many more didn't? And just how much liberty does one get when interpreting the dream? When is a cigar just a cigar, for example? What would be more astonishing is if someone - ANYONE - would have had a dream about 9/11 happening and had published something in advance. No, instead the most we can hope for is apparently a dream about the end of your daughter's abusive relationship. Which, quite honestly, doesn't really seem like it would have taken a lot of divination skills to determine. I mean, that's usually how those burn out.

How about a dreamer puts forth a prediction AHEAD of time, and makes a specific prediction? Has this ever been documented? And I'm talking about an event that wouldn't have normally been expected to happen. "I had a dream last night that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' marriage won't last." Ayup. Why is it only AFTER the event that the dreamers come along and say, "Yes, that's what I dreamed!"

It is not the fault of the evil rational materialists that your evidence can't withstand honest scrutiny. But you seem to think it is, and so you feel the need to bash them to feel better about your beliefs.

[irislake]

67. Did you read it carefully?

Our group treated the concord crash dream as metaphorical because experienced dreamers know there are thousands of plane crash dreams that refer to projects in a dreamer's life or relationships coming to grief not to real events in external reality. Someone in the group said, "We should at least consider whether or not it is precognitive and will come true literally." Someone answered, "DON'T BE SILLY SINCE WHEN DOES THE CONCORD EVER CRASH?" And within a week it crashed. (A rare event for the concord to crash. Know of any others? And a week after someone dreamed it -- moreover dreamed the details of how it crashed -- taking off flipping over -- crashing on a white building?)

The 9/11 dream I mentioned is dated also because it appeared in the newspaper in advance.

If there were a few flukes like this you wouldn't take them seriously, which I didn't when I first started to record dreams. But when there are hundreds of them the cumulative effect is persuasive. As for my daughter's situation -- certainly it was predictable the relationship would end eventually. But my recorded dream predicted how and why more than a year in advance. The dream said he (a longshoreman) would assault somebody at work, lose his job and have to sell the house, and then my daughter would leave. That could also be coincidence and a fluke but when most of the other dreams also turn out to have predicted future events that is persuasive. How many examples would I have to give you? It took years of gathering data before I was convinced.
Lots of people dreamed about 9/11 in advance by the way. Some of the relatives and friends of people who died in particular. There's a book published of dreams people had shortly before Princess Di was killed. Some were verifiably recorded in advance many were not. No doubt some people would lie -- but not all. I also mentioned the Aberfam tragedy in Wales where a huge coal tip slid like an avalanch and killed most of the children in a school. I cannot imagine the mother lying about her child telling her before she died, "Mummy, mummy I dreamed I went to school and something black came down all over it." The mother was absolutely guilt-ridden because she hadn't kept her home.

What I am saying is mainstream science would say about the concord dream. "So what? Doesn't prove a thing. Coincidence." No matter how many examples you came up with they would say "coincidence" or "lie".
But I would guess that most people who report having had precognitive dreams are telling the truth. They are usually amazed and flabbergasted or upset.
Why am I trying to convince you? God only knows. It's possible one of the researchers at The International Association for The Study of Dreams (it's online)is gathering precognitive dreams about 9/ll. Although there were huge numbers reported they can only be validated if they can prove they told someone in advance or that their dream journal recorded in advance in a way that the dreamer couldn't have put it in later.
Lots of people keep quiet about precognitive dreams for fear of ridicule. No wonder. You need to be among the converted and that is where I will stay henceforth. Lots of us have PhDs in psychology, by the way, and are very cautious about arriving at conclusions.
I do not have a Ph.D but did some post-graduate work and am quite familiar with the experimental method. If you check out the IASD website you will find plenty to sneer at because some of those researchers are in absolute outer space. But there is lots of solid and sincere academic work that has been done. Serious dream research is a very new field and not completely respectable yet.

[trotsky]

69. I hope someday you understand why anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence.

Oh and having to wade through volumes of "outer space" research to get at the "serious" stuff is not my job. It's up to the people who think dreams can actually predict the future. Collect the data, and present it to a peer-reviewed journal, show it can be duplicated, and earn yourself a Nobel Prize. And claim Randi's million dollar prize, too. Fame and fortune await you - what are you doing wasting your time on this message board?

[irislake]

86. How condescending of you

I am well aware of the fact that science does NOT accept anecdotal evidence. (When I first went to university in the sixties behaviourists would not accept the fact that Consciousness could be studied. Some idiots even said consciousness did not exist.) Therefore since dream reports are ALWAYS by necessity anecdotal evidence, even if subjects are shaken awake in a sleep lab during REM sleep and report a dream, it cannot be accepted as evidence of anything at all. It cannot even be accepted that the patient had a dream. Researchers believe that altered brain waves indicate the subject is in the midst of a dream so they conclude that they probably are. It is now generally accepted even by mainstream science that REM sleep indicates the dream state and dream reports confirm. But inconclusive proof? Brain waves are different is all.

There is some agreement about the purpose of dreams. Mainstream science will accept that they are a way of assimilating learning material and that sleep before exams is better than cramming. More controversial is whether dreams are problem solving but most researchers even in the mainstream believe that problem solving occurs in dreams. I mentioned Einstein and Bohm and more particularly Benjamin Franklin who dreamed most of his inventions. Einstein had a dream about a sleigh that gave him the clue to E=MC2. He is on record recommending people pay attention to their dreams and had a long correspondence with Jung as well. (More open minded than Dawkins.)

The controversy about whether dreams have meaning pretty well splits the scientific far right fundamentalists off from the rest of the field. Psychiatrists, even if they are rational reductionists and have no religious beliefs whatever, routinely use dreams and other projective tests as diagnostic tools, and even to promote therapeutic change. Freud has lost credibility and Jung's theories are absolutely not accepted by mainstream psychiatry. But when psychiatrists interpret dreams, whatever their stripe, there is general consensus on the meaning.

I went to a workshop once with 25 members and the instructor had tape recorded dreams of patients and played them for us to interpret. We usually scored close to 100%. For example a woman related being in the cockpit of a plane in disagreement with the pilot and she, the co-pilot, decided to bail out even though she had no parachutte and knew she would be killed. Absolutely everybody wrote down that they thought her marriage had broken down and that she was getting out of it and was suicidally depressed. (We wrote down our interpretations first and then read them out.)

Again the problem is no matter how much consensus there might be about what dreams mean that can never be accepted by science because it's anecdotal.

But as far as whether or not dreams are meaningful at all where I object to the work of Francis Crick is that he ventured into the area of consciousness studies and dreams at all and drew conclusions, with very little data, to the effect that they are not meaningful and are merely the brain cleaning itself like a computer at night.

When there is a coherent narrative that tells a story that is related to some deeply troubling issue of the dreamer, his failure to acknowledge that possiblility really shocks me. I think it is even evidence of biased determination to deny it because he doesn't like where the implications might lead. (He is always referred to in passing by other dream researchers and few agree with him.) There are some people -- quite a few I guess -- who think dreams are gibberish because they cannot decode metaphor and interpret narrative. Fair enough. The fact is that we all have dreams and we all use symbols and metaphor and so on one level we well understand them.

Here's a dream Francis Crick would call garbage and meaningless. A woman's father has died. Until the day of his death she talked to him every night on the phone. After his death she dreamed that she was sitting with her father in an all white cafe at a table for two and she complained to him that now that he was dead she couldn't talk to him any more. He said, "You can talk to me here. You're talking to me now." But she said, "It's not the same." Then she saw that there was a fig tree right beside the table and that on the end of every branch there was a brightly coloured bird, red, green, indigo, and so on. They marvelled that they were so many and so beautiful. But suddenly the tree vanished and the birds were all trapped in one of those bird clocks that has a different bird picture on every hour and that bird sings the hour. They can hear all the birds' wings fluttering inside the clock and they know they have to release the birds and that they must do it together and very carefully. When they do so the birds fly off and they feel very happy."

Now that's a story. It's not meaningless. It does make sense. It has a beginning and a middle and an end. Moreover, it is related to the dreamer's real emotional situation in real life.

A totally unrelated dreamer whose father had died dreamed she was sitting in a beautiful green park on a bench talking to her father when a gorgeous Indigo Bunting landed on her head. It was her favourite bird. Then it jumped onto her hand and she knew it would stay with her forever. That is also a story and it also has a consoling message for a dreamer who is bereft because her parent died. Garbage? I don't think so.

I personally wonder what the heck kind of material Francis Crick was examining when he came to such a ridiculous conclusion. I am sure he would sneer and pooh pooh at the finding that most people who have experienced loss of a loved one have consoling dreams and feel better as a result.
People have dreams to help them deal with all major events. Pregnancy. Trauma. Whatever.

I won't open myself to ricicule by interpreting the two dreams above. Let me say though, that those who are not hostile to the possibility that they have meaning and can be interpreted, would not have any difficulty understanding them.

About precognitive dreams I told you two. Documented and dated. One about the crash of the concord the other about the 9/11 terrorist attack. Did I say they would be accepted as proof? No --- I don't think so. Not only that but if somebody comes out with a book filled with examples of lucky hits like that THERE IS NO WAY someone like Dawkins or Crick would even open the door a crack to admit even a smidgeon of a possiblility that they were precognitive. Even if they collected thousands. Every one would be anecdotal. Of course there are such books and some reviewers sneer others are favourably impressed.

About experiments. I'm not up-to-date but to my knowledge the experiments done at University of Virginia by Robert Van de Castle and Calvin Hall in telepathy were never disproved and were replicated several times elsewhere. The experiments are described in OUR DREAMING MIND. Telepathic experiences in dreams are a dime a dozen.But psychologists will perform such experiments until they are blue in the face and get nowhere until somebody big becomes a convert. (Calvin Hall began as an absolute doubter and ended by believing).

The sad thing is I do not really give a hoot about telepathy and precognition. That is a complete sideline for me. I'm a writer and I'm interested in the meaning and interpretation of dreams and in how they demonstrate personality growth. I am using dreams in a novel as many writers have done. I might write a non-fiction book about power symbols in dreams. I am gathering my grandchildrens' dreams and feel amazed seeing how their dreams demonstrate increasing psychological complexity and growth.

I am not a scientist I do not ever expect to get recognition for this stuff. Like many others I am passing on the material to researchers at various universities who are collecting dream journals. Maybe they will eventually have accumulated enough evidence that might change mainstream thinking even if unfortunately all dreams are anecdotal.

Nobody will ever win a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of telepathy or precognition.

People do not look for "fame and fortune" after they get to be grandparents, that's kid stuff. What matters to us is our kids and grand-kids.

If I didn't get cabin fever now and then living totally alone in the woods here I would never post. You will see that my numbers are low though I have read DU daily since 2001. I consider myself to be temporarily nuts for having spent three days on this thread. Two weeks in Toronto visiting my kids and grandkids over Christmas should cure me. (We celebrate and don't believe, so what? The decorations are pretty and the music is nice.)

Message to self --- Fuck! Sometimes I wish I had a dish and could watch trashy TV instead of wasting hours on this bloody computer! I must be nuts! Nuts! Absolutely bat-crazy nuts!

[trotsky]

87. Wow, now that's something else.

You, bashing some of the finest scientific minds, calling someone else "condescending."

Please return to your dream studies, enjoy yourself. I'm not even going to comment further on your post - it's pointless.

[beam me up scottie]

42. In other words, your "work" in telepathy and precognition was rejected by real scientists.

And now you've made it your mission to smear all legitimate scientists who have been recognized for their work because they have the credibility you lack.

I feel sorry for you if that helps.

[irislake]

48. You first

No my work has not been rejected. That was a nasty crack.I am researching dreams for my own pleasure. I am 68 years old and am using my journals and dreams to write a novel. (If I live long enough.) I think Eysenck has described some experiments that were legitimate. Robert Van de Castle at University of Virginia -- now retired. Experiments described in OUR DREAMING MIND.Rhine at Duke. Edward Mitchel's scores in outer space were way above chance. He was a scientist who was converted by his experiences in space. I will pass on my material after death to a nearby university. The International Association for the Study of Dreams collects dream journals. Stanley Ullman wrote Dreams and Telepathy. There's a book I got out of the library -- title forgotten -- about children and telepathy. The psychologist who wrote it noticed that children and mentally handicapped children especially scored very high. And even higher if the person sending the target was a person they loved. They were scoring in the range of %90. One child chided her teacher, who was getting bored with the experiment, "Think close." meaning "Pay attention." Some scientists who were scornful and ridiculed the experiments actually scored way below chance as if needing to disprove telepathy.

[beam me up scottie]

49. A nasty crack? You mean like your inference of mental illness?

Oh, yay! I got a bonus.

As if your posts weren't hateful and bitter enough, you're throwing in a massive dose of hypocrisy as well.



None of whatever it is you're so angry about has anything to do with science, scientists, atheists or atheism.

And yet you feel your comparison of atheists to mentally ill people was justified.

Again, I feel sorry for you.

Anyone who thinks they have to insult the mentally ill in order to score points against atheists deserves pity.

[irislake]

55. Reaction formation is a mental illness?

I just thought it was a normal defence mechanism. Denial, projection that sort of thing.

Hateful and bitter? How did I convey that?
I admit to feeling irrational and extreme anger towards Bush and Cheney. Scientists don't make me lie awake at night.

I'm critical of rational reductionists for not keeping an open mind. I don't hate them or feel bitter. I am kind of shocked at the heat some of these topics generate in your country. Antheists and other persuasions could care less in Canada and Europe and would not lead to insult. Remarks which would be innocuous outside your country get you riled.

There is a book about dreams (THE THIRD REICH OF DREAMS) which a woman doctor collected from ordinary people and patients during Hitler's rise to power in Germany. What they showed was that in a totalitarian state people's dreams became political and their dreams held them morally responsible for their political stances with respect to Hitler. Many of the dreams were telepathic and precognitive. That was a side issue. The point was that there was no escaping the responsibility of taking a moral position towards this Nazi who was rising to power.

I was on a dream chat line, that most likely originates in the U.S, about a year ago and some woman posted a dream about being in the rear of a canoe paddling and who was in the front directing where the canoe was to go but Dick Cheney. She commented. That's weird. I don't know a thing about Dick Cheney, I'm completely apolitical. I posted the reply that if it were my dream I would make it a point to find out about Dick Cheney and where he might be taking me. WOW! Did the shit hit the fan! His approval rating was at %19 and that comment that maybe she should educate herself about Cheney, politely put, I thought, caused such a furor that moderators removed my comment and vetoed further posts on the topic. That climate of intolerance and anger seems to crop up on any threads about atheism I have read on DU. So I bow out, folks. Sorry I opened my big fat mouth. I am sure there must be some topics which would cause equal heat in Canada but I can't think of one. Quite honestly things are so stressful in your country since 9/11 that I think your baseline of anger is much higher than normal and who can blame you? I would be nuts in your situation --- I don't know when things will get better for you.Hopefully very soon. I wish you well I truly do and now I will but out. Sorry if I gave offence.

[Danger Mouse]

57. That got fairly heated...

over very little of consequence.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I live in the reddest part of the country.

I work in a "christian workplace", if I'm outed as an atheist, I'll lose my job.

And I'm not the only one, two engineers are also in the atheist closet.

So when I see misinformation posted about us, I get a little testy.

Liberals are supposed to be tolerant and learn about people who are different from them.

All except for the fucking angry atheists, they've got issues.

Maybe you should read about atheism before telling us what we believe.

[irislake]

62. I have a friend

who moved from Kentucky to Canada because she was totally shunned and ostracized for steering clear of the church. B ut in Canada the shoe is on the other foot. If you are religious (which I am not) people think you are dumb. It's poor taste to talk about religion and Stephen Harper really has to play it down and will be turfed from office for it. Voters thinks his religious views are horrifying. Politicians in Canada keep religious beliefs close to the chest. Every time Stephen Harper says, "God bless Canada" he loses another vote.

[Evoman]

66. Huh? Where the heck in Canada are you living?

I live in the praries and I could easily say that most people around here are christians. People don't think your dumb for being religious! For gods sakes, I'm a religion-hating atheist, and even I don't think religious people are dumb. I have many christians friends. Hell, one of my best friends is a fundie.

And THANK GOD its poor taste to talke about religion in politics. Thats the way it should be. However, its not religion per se thats the faux pas, its acting as if god talks to you that a problem. Most Canadians hate when Harper says God Bless because they hate George Bush, and don't want that shit to happen here...not because they hate religion.

[irislake]

68. I live in Eastern Ontario

Near Peterborough. I'm in a rural area and there are church goers here -- farmers and stuff. There's an Evangelical church. I moved here from Toronto to retire in cottage country. I have met some very sweet and gentle Born Agains. The Jehovah Witnesses used to come to my door once a month until I answered it wearing a bath towel. I just love a couple about a mile down the road who are so devout that they built a pretty little white chapel on their property. They are not stupid, but they are very naive. Maybe it's an urban thing and also level of education to kind of think fundies are dumb. It also seems to me that our politicians think it is tacky or unsophisticated to express religious sentiments -- whatever their beliefs. In any case I have never noticed anyone at all getting all hot and bothered about it.

[bananas]

71. Bullshit, you owe her an apology, BMUS. nt

[cosmik debris]

72. We used to have a truce here on references to mental illness

irislake did not honor that truce. BMUS has every right to call foul on the mental illness issue. If an apology is in order it should come first from the first offender.

[bananas]

74. Questions

1) Did irislake know about this truce? I haven't spent that much time here and haven't heard about it.
2) "reaction formation" doesn't infer mental illness, does the truce extend to normal psychological processes?

[cosmik debris]

75. My answers

1) I have no way of knowing, but now that it has been posted, I will watch for some sign of contrition.

2)"This mechanism is often characteristic of obsessional neuroses."

"This is often in those with obsessional character and obsessive personality disorders."

These two quotes came from the Wikipedia entry.

[bananas]

77. Then no contrition needed or expected

from irislake because wikipedia clearly states that "reaction formation" does not infer mental illness:

"Defence mechanisms are helpful and, if used in a proper manner, are healthy. Some disorders, such as personality disorders and psychosis, may in fact be caused in part by inadequate use of appropriate defence mechanisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism

"reaction formation is a defense mechanism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation


So BMUS still owes an apology.

(edits for clarity)

[beam me up scottie]

83. She owes us several since I'm not the one who inferred others were mentally ill.

And you owe us several as well.

We're stupid "uncultured lowlifes" and the reason why you lose elections, remember?

Oh, right, I forgot, that quote was "taken out of context". :rofl:

Let me know when you've decided to stop practicing the sacred religion of Hypocrisy. :hi:

[irislake]

90. Thank-you for your support bananas

I am sorry I got into this. I actually feel a bit bruised and hurt after debating with BMUS and Trotsky. I don't intend to continue. I didn't mean anything meanly but I think they got really hostile.

In the circles I move in we often josh each other about having "reaction formation" if we are very vehement about some position we take. I don't think of it as being a symptom of mental illness at all.

I don't intend to enter into further debate with them about the nature of mental illness. They seem to be experts about pretty well everything. (Insult intended.)

I don't often post. Will avoid American atheists in the future. American atheists, unlike atheists in the rest of the world, come out guns blazing and fight to the last ditch. Their bullets wound! Quite honestly a couple of them are hostile enough to remind me of "Freepers". (Insults intended.)

I wish I had read a good book instead of posting because it has left me feeling down. I use DU for company and support --- expect to find like-minded people -- who -- even if we disagree about some things -- do so politely.

"Methinks they doth protest too much."

Thanks again.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Buh bye!

I'd like to say I'll miss you, but we already have plenty of people who think they have the right to tell us what we believe or don't in this forum.

But hey, if we're ever running low, we'll let you know.

Just remember, whatever you do, don't show respect to atheists by asking them how they define their atheism, keep right on doing it for them (just like you did in this thread), no matter how offensive it is.

:hi:

[bananas]

92. You're welcome, irislake

A lot of the hostility is due to the extent of fundamentalism in the U.S., some areas have become extremely regressive. This country has taken a giant leap backwards.

There is so much polarization in this forum, it seems impossible to say anything without offending someone - any comment will be viewed as a personal insult by somebody, and they respond by attacking.

I've said a number of times that this forum should be hidden like the 911 forum is.
The threads are always divisive and devolve into insults and hostility.
This is the first I've read of any "truces" here, how am I supposed to know what other "truces" they've made among themselves?
The forum is like a mine field, it should have a large fence around it with huge warning signs.

[bananas]

76. Another question

Wouldn't the truce make any reference to Dawkins book "The God D*l*s**n" prohibited? I see a thread with it in the title.

[cosmik debris]

78. I don't understand

You argue that "obsessive personality disorders" and "obsessional neuroses" are not mental illness and delusions are mental illness. I don't suppose there is any reasonable response to such an argument.

[bananas]

80. LOL - anyone who mentioned Dawkins book broke the truce!

"In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

[cosmik debris]

81. There are two definitions there

you chose the one that fits your argument, but you did not show that Dawkins used the word in that context. It seems more likely to me that he used it in the context of the first (and more common) definition.

i.e. "...a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception."

Why would you believe that he passed up the everyday language to use some less common meaning? Unless of course it was to support a weak argument.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Don't you know that everything is subject to her interpretation alone?

When I reminded her of the fact that she told us that we were stupid, uncultured lowlifes who are responsible for losing elections, I was told I "took it out of context".

[cosmik debris]

85. And the context is:

You are a mean old atheist. And uppity too!}(

[Danger Mouse]

94. Come on guys...

knee-jerk reaction a little?
:eyes:
i didn't know about any truce either. noone sent me the memo :shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

95. Well...

at least with the initial post...the rest of the arguing...i ain't touchin that shit! :scared:

[cosmik debris]

96. Apparently the truce has expired

And that is a shame since this arena is a lot more civil when contributors refrain from that particular insult.

[Danger Mouse]

97. I never was aware of it...

...honestly, I thought I've seen people on this board from time time compare religious belief to delusions...how is that any different than implying mental illness?

[cosmik debris]

98. You might be deluded without being mentally ill

Just as you might believe in god without being mentally ill.

Recently a poster said that George Bush believes that he hears god speak to him. And that is OK. But if he said that he hears god speak to him through his hair drier, then we have a constitutional crisis.

[Meshuga]

99. It depends also

on what Bush means by the word "hear". If he literally hears God then I'd also say he might be mentally ill. No need for a hair dryer there. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

102. It's not a formal truce.

Just an informal agreement to refrain from using insulting and demeaning references when discussing religious faith and/or lack of it.

Atheists should try to avoid comparing faith to mental illness and belief in fairy tales.

Theists should try to avoid calling atheism a religion and/or a choice to reject god (begging the question).

People who don't post here regularly and newbies can't be expected to know about it.

[beam me up scottie]

101. It hasn't expired.

Some people just don't care to abide by it.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Okay, let's break down the comments and have a lesson about what is offensive and why.

I was blindsided by an angry theist when I first started posting in this forum and I had no idea why.
Turns out it was because he was a jerk, but there are a lot of land mines in here and it helps to have a map.


Here we go:

Go ahead and say you do not believe there is a divine force and a meaningful universe but it's flat-out pig-headed to say you have proof of it.

Is it not egocentric to say "I am all there is and there is nothing else but this life and I know that absolutely"?

These statements are offensive because they refer to the stereotypical atheist who says he knows there is no god. Most atheists don't claim to have absolute knowledge.

My gripe when it comes to Dawkins and other distinguished rationalists is when they maintain that there most certainly is no divine force or meaning in the universe rather than saying that nothing in their experience persuades them that there is and that they doubt it very much. So why say they are certain?

Again, Dawkins, like most atheists, doesn't make the absolute claim that "there most certainly is no divine force or meaning in the universe".

Why be athiest rather than keeping a neutral stance?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have a friend
who moved from Kentucky to Canada because she was totally shunned and ostracized for steering clear of the church. B ut in Canada the shoe is on the other foot. If you are religious (which I am not) people think you are dumb.

This is obviously bullshit, not to mention offensive to tolerant Canadians. I grew up on the border surrounded by French Canadians. Trust me, non-christians were few and far between.

There is so much polarization in this forum, it seems impossible to say anything without offending someone - any comment will be viewed as a personal insult by somebody, and they respond by attacking

The poster refuses to acknowledge that she has made unfair and inaccurate statements about atheists and blames them because they're offended.

The threads are always divisive and devolve into insults and hostility.

She claims that she was "attacked" but never once asks why her posts were met with hostility.

This is the first I've read of any "truces" here, how am I supposed to know what other "truces" they've made among themselves?

One doesn't need to sign a truce to know that defining other people's beliefs, or lack of them, is offensive.




I wonder what the poster would expect to happen if they were to go into the LBGT forum and ask why people choose to be gay.

After fighting with people who perpetuate those same stereotypes on DU, even when they KNOW that they're false, this uppity atheist is tired of it.

[Danger Mouse]

105. Heh...you know what?

One time, when I was still in college (back in 2003 or so), I was posting on the Daily Jolt politics forum, and i happened to see an article about how a school teacher turned out to be a lesbian and all of these parents started to demand that she be fired.
So I posted about how I thought that was bigotry.
Well, I was scheduled to hang out with my ex-girlfriend that night. When I went to visit her, she gave me a lecture about my posting on the jolt. Turned out (I dated her for several months and never knew) that she was a VERY socially conservative Christian on certain issues, and was VERY homophobic...anyway, she was all about that 'love the sinner hate the sin' garbage which I have grown sick of.
Oh, I didn't argue with her other posts being offensive. I didn't even try to read them (my head hurt =P) I was just surprised by the reaction to her initial comment.
THEN she proceeded to go off the deep end.
Ah well.

[beam me up scottie]

106. I know how that feels. Except I was married to the bigot.

He wasn't like that when I met and married him, but my ex became more and more bigoted every year. His dad is a wonderful guy but his mother had more influence over him.

[Danger Mouse]

31. I'm religious...

And I think this video was excellent. Not insulting at all, and every point it makes is excellent.
I don't think anyone's lives should be governed by someone else's religious beliefs, and as I've said before, the way people regard atheists is ridiculously narrow-minded and ignorant.

[Felix Mala]

79. What do you call an atheist who still enjoys Christmas parties?

Eggnogstic

[Danger Mouse]

93. A dirty heathen!

Do I win a prize? B-)

[beam me up scottie]

103. Hey! I resemble that remark.

:spank:

I shower daily.

[Danger Mouse]

104. Ha ha ha...

:eyes: yeah, you're like SO funny =)
which do you prefer? heretic, heathen, or blasphemer?
i kind of like blasphemer. it rolls off the tongue.

[beam me up scottie]

107. I prefer Infidel.

It has such sinister connotations... :evilgrin: