Atheists and Anger: Lisa's Homework

[Lisa0315]

I was assigned some reading material in a half-serious attempt to get me and Ronin to stop arguing with each other. Here is my assignment and my responses to it.

The article was pretty long so this may take several posts to get it all in.

Article in Blue. My responses in black.

Atheists and Anger

I want to talk about atheists and anger.
This has been a hard piece to write, and it may be a hard one to read. I'm not going to be as polite and good-tempered as I usually am in this blog; this piece is about anger, and for once I'm going to fucking well let myself be angry.
But I think it's important. One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I want to talk about:
1. Why atheists are angry;
2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;
And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.
So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry.

*****

I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611), only 45 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for President.
I am one of the 55 percent of Americans that would vote for an atheist for President or any other office for that matter.


I'm angry that atheist conventions have to have extra security (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/01/atheist-alliance-international-convention-2007-recap/), including hand-held metal detectors and bag searches, because of fatwas and death threats.
This would piss me off too. I am not threatening atheists though.


I'm angry that atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml) by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to proselytize on military bases (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/more_aggressive_proselytizing.php) -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/update_on_military_atheism_law.php) from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces. And I'm angry that Christians still say smug, sanctimonious things like, "there are no atheists in foxholes." You know why you're not seeing atheists in foxholes? Because believers are threatening to shoot them if they come out.
I find this a bit of emotionalism rather than a valid reason to be angry. American troops are not shooting each other because of belief or lack of belief.
I am angry that there was an attempt to de-personalize prayer so that military chaplains may not pray in Jesus name, and rabbis may not pray to God. Instead, there was an attempt to force them to call upon a generic nameless god, and this is directly against the beliefs of those chaplains, rabbis, and believer’s rights.

I'm angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "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." My President. No, I didn't vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn't be regarded as a citizen.
He sucked for saying that. He should have been horse-whipped for saying it.


I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to serve on juries, testify in court, or hold public office (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm) in every state in the country.
I was born in 1967, so address the generation before me.

I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814). And not a broad, "God had a hand in evolution" creationism, but a strict, young-earth, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" creationism.
Why does this make people so angry? Why do you care what people believe?

And on that topic: I'm angry that school boards all across this country are still -- 82 years after the Scopes trial -- having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. School boards are not exactly loaded with time and money and resources, and any of the time/ money/ resources that they're spending fighting this stupid fight is time/ money/ resources that they're not spending, you know, teaching.
Can someone show me a recent lawsuit in which a school board has had to fight for its right to teach evolution in schools?
I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.
I am not Catholic. You cannot hang that one on me. I am a little pissed about that one too.

I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.
What state is this? When did this happen?


I'm angry about what happened to Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy). Still. And I'm angry that it took the Catholic Church until 1992 to apologize for it.
That is one long fucking grudge right there. Again, that was a bit before my time, and I am not Catholic.

I get angry when advice columnists tell their troubled letter-writers to talk to their priest or minister or rabbi... when there is absolutely no legal requirement that a religious leader have any sort of training in counseling or therapy.
Have you met some of the “professionals” out there? Sorry, but the professional therapists are not always the best answer either. Talking to a trusted and respected friend sometimes is a much better, and WAY less expensive (as in free) way to resolve conflict.

And I get angry when religious leaders offer counseling and advice to troubled people -- sex advice, relationship advice, advice on depression and stress, etc. -- not based on any evidence about what actually does and does not work in people's brains and lives, but on the basis of what their religious doctrine tells them God wants for us.
How do you know this? If a couple chooses to follow the Bible, and if a couple does exactly what Scripture says, i.e., love each other as their own bodies, then, there will be few problems in the marriage. It is only when people are selfish that marriages crumble.
If a minister or other religious leader advises a mentally ill person something other than professional treatment, then, they should be defrocked or whatever. I am not denying that it happens. Ignorant people are sometimes put into positions of leadership, but it is up to those individuals to choose whether to follow the advice or not.

I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives.
Again, who does this???? Muslims maybe??? Okay, that pisses me off too, but why lump ALL religious people into this category?

I'm angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I'm angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/please_god_help_me_suck_out.php), beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four -- and as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren't praying just as hard.
Do you know how many sermons I have heard against this? We are to pray in the will of God FOR the will of God. If ignorant people pray for such bullshit, or if their special team wins and they give credit to God, well, it is a coincidence, not an answered prayer. God doesn’t give us better parking or help us to find our keys or help us to win the lottery. I know some may claim these things are from God, and there is nothing wrong with giving God the glory for every small good thing that comes, but it is not like God is moving traffic for us. Uhm, He has a few things a bit bigger than this to take care of.

I'm especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I'm angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I'm angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children (http://surgeonsblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/bless-child.html) -- in essence teaching them that, if they don't get better, it's their fault. That they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't pray right, or God just doesn't love them enough.
This seems like a misrepresentation of what healing prayers are about, or what the believer is supposed to do if the healing does not come. Shit happens. Life happens. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. How we react to these things is an element of faith if one has faith, but it is not someone’s fault if the prayer is answered as “No”.

And I get angry when other believers insist that the cosmic shopping list isn't what religion and prayer are really about; that their own sophisticated theology is the true understanding of God. I get angry when believers insist that the shopping list is a straw man, an outmoded form of religion and prayer that nobody takes seriously, and it's absurd for atheists to criticize it.
Well, I guess she will just have to be angry then. This kind of sounds like, damn us if we do, and damn us if we don’t. She sounds like she is pissed off if we pray for healing and she is pissed off if we defend ourselves stating that is not how we are supposed to pray. Oh, well…


I get angry when believers use terrible, grief-soaked tragedies as either opportunities to toot their own horns and talk about how wonderful their God and their religion are (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/someones-lookin.html)... or as opportunities to attack and demonize atheists and secularism (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/).
Pisses me off too, but then, don’t atheists blame the world’s ills on religion with just as much venom?

I'm angry at the Sunday school teacher who told comic artist Craig Thompson that he couldn't draw in heaven (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/07/craig-thompsons.html). And I'm angry that she said it with the complete conviction of authority... when in fact she had no basis whatsoever for that assertion. How the hell did she know what Heaven was like? How could she possibly know that you could sing in heaven but not draw? And why the hell would you say something that squelching and dismissive to a talented child?
I don’t know. Sounds pretty stupid to me, but again, how is all of Christianity and every other religion responsible for the stupidity of one person?

I'm angry that Mother Teresa took her personal suffering and despair at her lost faith in God (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/where-is-my-fai.html), and turned it into an obsession that led her to treat suffering as a beautiful gift from Christ to humanity, a beautiful offering from humanity to God, and a necessary part of spiritual salvation. And I'm angry that this obsession apparently led her to offer grotesquely inadequate medical care and pain relief at her hospitals and hospices, in essence taking her personal crisis of faith out on millions of desperately poor and helpless people.
So, this lady is angry that Mother Theresa had a crisis of faith, but did not deny God and turn into a poster child for atheism. Oh, okay.


I'm angry at the trustee of the local Presbyterian church who told his teenage daughter that he didn't actually believe in God or religion (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/allen_wayback.html), but that it was important to keep up his work because without religion there would be no morality in the world.
One person…be mad at him, not the whole religion.

I'm angry that so many parents and religious leaders terrorize children -- who (a) have brains that are hard-wired to trust adults and believe what they're told, and (b) are very literal-minded -- with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they'll be too frightened to even question religion.
Yeah, this happened to me quite a bit. I still questioned it and felt immensely bad about my questions. This resulted in childhood OCD in which I err…religiously underlined verses for hours at the time. It led me to rebel against my religious training at age 13, and I did not return to the faith until five years ago. I always wanted to tell everyone, “Watch what you fucking say to these kids!” Oh, wait. Jesus said all that. I don’t have to.

[Lisa0315]

I'm angrier when religious leaders explicitly tell children – and adults, for that matter -- that the very questioning of religion and the existence of hell is a dreadful sin, one that will guarantee them that hell is where they'll end up.
Yeah, me too.

I'm angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I'm especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness.
Me too.

I'm angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told -- by her public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher -- that the red stripes on Christmas candy canes represented Christ's blood, that she had to believe in and be saved by Jesus Christ or she'd be condemned to hell, and that if she didn't, there was no place for her in his classroom. And I'm angry that he told her not to come back to his class when she didn't convert.
What a dumbass! I am sure his ass got fired for that. If not, someone contact the fucking ACLU!


I'm angry -- enraged -- at the priests who molest children and tell them it's God's will. I'm enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church's reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck's sake, children not being molested. And I'm enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn't yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression (http://secularcafe.org/%20http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-catholic-ch.html).
Yeah, me too, and it is not just Catholics and not just Christian leaders who do this to kids.

I'm angry about 9/11.
Me too.

And I'm angry that Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, the ACLU, and the People For the American Way. I'm angry that the theology of a wrathful God exacting revenge against pagans and abortionists by sending radical Muslims to blow up a building full of secretaries and investment bankers... this was a theology held by a powerful, widely-respected religious leader with millions of followers.
I have been disgusted by Jerry Falwell since I was a kid. I actually said something derogatory about him in church when I was about ten years old, and my mother and other adults around me agreed. The Moral Majority, and its crazy counterparts around the world do not represent the majority no matter what they say or how much money they may have.

I'm angry that, when my dad had a stroke and went into a nursing home, the staff asked my brother, "Is he a Baptist or a Catholic?" And I'm not just angry on behalf of my atheist dad. I'm angry on behalf of all the Jews, all the Buddhists, all the Muslims, all the neo-Pagans, whose families almost certainly got asked that same question. That question is enormously disrespectful, not just of my dad's atheism, but of everyone at that nursing home who wasn't a Baptist or a Catholic.
Again, blame the staff, not the religion. A lot of misplaced anger in this blog.

I'm angry about Ingrid's grandparents. I'm angry that their fundamentalism was such a huge source of strife and unhappiness in her family, that it alienated them so drastically from their children and grandchildren. I'm angry that they tried to cram it down Ingrid's throat, to the point that she's still traumatized by it. And I'm angry that their religion, which if nothing else should have been a comfort to them in their old age, was instead a source of anguish and despair -- because they knew their children and grandchildren were all going to be burned and tortured forever in Hell, and how could Heaven be Heaven if their children and grandchildren were being eternally burned and tortured in Hell?
Again, sorry about that, but it is not the belief of everyone. Some of us believe that when Jesus said to love one another, that is what he meant.

I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified.
I am sorry about that too. It is one reason I voted for the anti-Bush this time around. Obama has already made a pretty huge move towards de-criminalizing homosexuality throughout the world, and I have a pretty good feeling that he will open up civil unions to everyone in his second term.

I'm angry that huge swaths of public policy in this country -- not just on same-sex marriage, but on abortion and stem-cell research and sex education in schools -- are being based, not on evidence of which policies do and don't work and what is and isn't true about the world, but on religious texts (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/05/mitt_romney_gay.html) written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and on their own personal feelings about how those texts should be interpreted, with no supporting evidence whatsoever -- and no apparent concept of why any evidence should be needed.
Social values change over time. I do not believe in abortion myself. However, I do believe that the only alternative is to provide resources and alternatives for unwanted pregnancies. I do not think abortion should be treated as birth control. I believe the subject is just a bit more complex than “thebiblesaysso”, and more complex than “itisachoice”. Neither side is willing to compromise and it is to the detriment to our society as a whole.

I get angry when believers trumpet every good thing that's ever been done in the name of religion as a reason why religion is a force for good... and then, when confronted with the horrible evils done in religion's name, say that those evils weren't done because of religion, were done because of politics of greed or fear or whatever, would have been done anyway even without religion, and shouldn't be counted as religion's fault. (Of course, to be fair, I also get angry when atheists do the opposite (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/02/having_it_both_.html): chalk up every evil thing done in the name of religion as a black mark on religion's record, but then insist that the good things were done for other reasons and would have been done anyway, etc. Neither side gets to have it both ways.)
Evil done in the name of religion is not a good reason to not have religion at all. Instead, call people out on their hypocrisy.

I'm angry at the believers who put decals on their cars with a Faith fish eating a Darwin fish... and who think that's clever, who think that religious faith really should triumph over science and evidence. I'm angry at believers who have so little respect for the physical world their God supposedly created that they feel perfectly content to ignore the mountains of physical evidence piling up around them about that real world; perfectly content to see that world as somehow less real and true than their personal opinions about God.
Well, this seems a bit petty to me. I suppose coupled with all the other things, this represents quite a bit to an atheist. However, how about those movements to remove our crosses from the cemeteries, and the destruction of historical structures, statues, and plaques? Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways here.
I get angry that freedom of religion is more often interpreted freedom FROM religion.
(Note: The litany of specific grievances is now more than halfway over. Analysis of why anger is necessary and valuable is coming up soon. Promise.)

[Lisa0315]

I get angry when religious leaders opportunistically use religion, and people's trust and faith in religion, to steal, cheat, lie, manipulate the political process, take sexual advantage of their followers, and generally behave like the scum of the earth (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/good-thing-they.html). I get angry when it happens over (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/02/well_it_beats_a.html) and over (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/kent_hovind_10_years.php) and over again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals). And I get angry when people see this happening and still say that atheism is bad because, without religion, people would have no basis for morality or ethics, and no reason not to just do whatever they wanted.
Some atheists are immoral. Some religious people are immoral. Statistically, there will be more immoral religious people because statistically there are more religious people than there are atheists. Wrong is wrong.

I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong.
I do not do this. I know bunches of people who do.

I get angry when believers use the phrase "atheist fundamentalist (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/03/fundamentalist_.html)" without apparently knowing what the word "fundamentalist" means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these "fundamentalist" atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist.
I don’t know what this means. I have never heard religious people arguing over what kind of atheist and atheist is. I have seen countless of posts about it between atheists though.

I get angry when religious believers base their entire philosophy of life on what is, at best, a hunch; when they ignore or reject or rationalize any evidence that contradicts that hunch or calls it into question... and then accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth.
Seen this, done this myself, a time or two. It often happens in the heat of a moment when a discussion has gotten very intense.

And I get angry when believers glorify religious faith without evidence as a positive virtue, a character trait that makes people good and noble... and then continue to accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth.
Faith is a positive virtue for *me* as it gives me hope in the future. Again, if I call an atheist close-minded, it is not because of their lack of faith, but because it is a rare atheist who will concede a point even when it is pretty obvious. I concede when I am wrong. I find it hard to believe that atheists are NEVER wrong.

I get angry when believers say that they can know the truth -- the greatest truth of all about the nature of the universe, namely the source of all existence -- simply by sitting quietly and listening to their heart... and then accuse atheists of being arrogant. (This isn't just arrogant towards atheists and naturalists, either. It's arrogant towards people of other religions who have sat just as quietly, listened to their hearts with just as much sincerity, and come to completely opposite conclusions about God and the soul and the universe.)

The heart thing…It is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. We are indoctrinated so that we are told to not call this a “feeling”. However a “feeling” is closer than anything else to describe it. It is an inexplicable internal confirmation that resounds so true that it cannot be denied. Is that better?
Atheists appear arrogant and closed-minded to us because they seem to do exactly what they accuse Christians of doing. They are sooooo certain they are right that they cannot even contemplate that .000000001 chance that they are wrong.

And I get angry when believers say that the entire unimaginable enormity of the universe was made solely and specifically for the human race -- when atheists, by contrast, say that humanity is a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, an infinitesimal eyeblink in the vastness of time and space -- and yet again, believers accuse atheists of being arrogant.
Oh, the universe was not created for the human race. It was created by God FOR God.

I get angry when believers say things like, "Yes, of course, the human mind isn't perfect, we see what we expect to see, we see faces and patterns and intention when they aren't necessarily there... but that couldn't be happening with me. The patterns I see in my life... they couldn't possibly be coincidence or confirmation bias. I'm definitely seeing the hand of God." (And then, once again, those same believers accuse atheists of being close-minded and only seeing what we want to see.)
See above: Inexplicable internal confirmation that resounds so true that it cannot be denied.

I get angry when believers treat the gaps in science and scientific knowledge as somehow proof of the existence of God. I get angry when, despite a thousands-of-years-old pattern of supernatural explanations being consistently and repeatedly replaced with natural ones (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/01/the_unexplained.html), they still think every single unexplained phenomenon can be best explained by God. And I'm angry that, whenever a gap in our knowledge does get filled in, believers either try to suppress it (see above re: evolution in the schools), or else say, "Okay, that part of the world isn't supernatural... but what about this gap over here? Can you explain that, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist? You can't! It must be God!"
Ignorance. Pure and simple.

I get angry when believers say at the beginning of an argument that their belief is based on reason and evidence, and at the end of the argument say things like, "It just seems that way to me," or, "I feel it in my heart"... as if that were a clincher. I mean, couldn't they have said that at the beginning of the argument, and not wasted my fucking time? My time is valuable and increasingly limited, and I have better things to do with it than debating with people who pretend to care about evidence and reason but ultimately don't.
Why argue with religious folk to begin with? I mean, if they come knocking at your door, don’t answer. If they call you, block their number. If they post on the same forum as you, then, you are an independent agent, and do not have to read, respond, or get your panties in a wad. If you choose to engage, then, why get angry if you feel that your time has been wasted? Maybe the first time it happens, but after that first time, you know what you are getting into, right? More misplaced anger here.

I'm angry that I have to know more about their fucking religion than the believers do. I get angry when believers say things about the tenets and texts of their religion that are flatly untrue, and I have to correct them on it.
I am proof positive that this happens. However, there is the other side of the coin in which an atheist will insist that a piece of text means this and it simply doesn’t. I have certainly had that happen more often than having an atheist correct me on doctrine.

I get angry when believers treat any criticism of their religion -- i.e., pointing out that their religion is a hypothesis about the world and a philosophy of it, and asking it to stand up on its own in the marketplace of ideas -- as insulting and intolerant. I get angry when believers accuse atheists of being intolerant for saying things like, "I don't agree with you," "I think you're mistaken about that," "That doesn't make any sense," "I think that position is morally indefensible," and "What evidence do you have to support that?"
I get angry when atheists say this is what they are doing, but their actual words are, “Lisa, You are being dishonest. You are being evasive. You are full of shit.” I get angry when the poster insists that these ad homs are attacks on my beliefs rather than on my own character. Then, they proceed to tell anyone who will listen that I have done these things. No matter how much or how often I point out the difference between *me* and *my beliefs*, they still accuse me of being unable to withstand attacks on my beliefs. My beliefs, my faith in my beliefs, can withstand any question. I get angry that I have to stop a discussion to tell a person to stop ad homming me and the person cannot even admit that is what they are doing.

And on that point: I get angry when Christians in the United States -- members of the single most powerful and influential religious group in the country, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world -- act like beleaguered victims, martyrs being thrown to the lions all over again, whenever anyone criticizes them or they don't get their way.
Bullshit. See above. THIS ^^^^ whole sentence is an ad hom. I get this all the time and I am not doing anything except trying to get the poster back on the subject which IS NOT ABOUT ME!

I get angry when believers respond to some or all of these offenses by saying, "Well, that's not the true faith. Hating queers/ rejecting science/ stifling questions and dissent... that's not the true faith (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/07/the-true-faith-.html). People who do that aren't real (Christians/ Jews/ Muslims/ Hindus/ etc.)." As if they had a fucking pipeline to God. As if they had any reason at all to think that they know for sure what God wants, and that the billions of others who disagree with them just obviously have it wrong. (Besides -- I'm an atheist. The "They just aren't doing religion right" argument is not going to cut it with me. I don't think any of you have it right. To me, it all looks like something that people just made up (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/a-self-referent.html).)
Well, there it is in a nutshell. This is atheists wanting their cake and eating it too. Damn if we do, damn if we don’t. Those Christians on the side of the street demanding that gay marriage is wrong, damn those religious people! Those Christians on the other side of the street demanding gay rights, damn those liberal religious people! I get the feeling that atheism is simply another group that does not tolerate anyone outside the group.

On that topic: I get angry when religious believers insist that their interpretation of their religion and religious text is the right one, and that fellow believers with an opposite interpretation clearly have it wrong. I get angry when believers insist that the parts about Jesus's prompt return and all prayers being answered are obviously not meant literally... but the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination, that's real. And I get angry when believers insist that the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination aren't meant literally, but the parts about caring for the poor are really what God meant. How the hell do they know which parts of the Bible/ Torah/ Koran/ Bhagavad-Gita/ whatever God really meant, and which parts he didn't? And if they don't know, if they're just basing it on their own moral instincts and their own perceptions of the world, then on what basis are they thinking that God and their sacred texts have anything to do with it at all? What right do they have to act as if their opinion is the same as God's and he's totally backing them up on it?
This makes me angry too. I don’t know what in the hell God wants with any of us. So, I stick to the only thing that I am sure of. God wants us to love Him and love each other. I am simply not capable of worrying about the rest of it. This is how I cope with the conflicts now. Fuck it. I don’t know. Here is what it could be but I really have no clue. *shrug*. Now, go out there and love some people. The end.


And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them. It's like a white person responding to an African-American describing their experience of racism by saying, "But I'm not a racist." If you're not a racist, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and listen to the black people talk? And if you’re not bigoted against atheists and are sympathetic to us, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and let us tell you about what the world is like for us, without getting all defensive about how it's not your fault? When did this international conversation about atheism and religious oppression become all about you and your hurt feelings?
My feelings are not hurt. My feelings are not even part of the discussion. However, I have a right to defend my reputation. If you start in on ME, rather than my beliefs, then, yeah, I am going to defend myself as any other human being would. I will try to be nice about it. I will try to be reasonable. I may just stop talking to you. I might get snarky. I might complain about it. I might ask other people if I am the one in the wrong. I might do a lot of things IN REACTION to an ad hom. Stop using ad homs and you will never have to worry about my feelings again. You can call Jesus whatever you like. You can point out 15,000 verses that offend you. You can call up the blood of all of mankind that have died because of religion, and my feelings will not suffer. However, do not tell me that I am a liar, dodging the question, or any other such bullshit. I will call you on it, but then, of course, I will probably be told that I need to understand that my BELIEFS are going to be challenged. *rolls eyes*
Once again, for any and all, my BELIEFS ARE OPEN-SEASON. My personal integrity and reputation are NOT.

[Free in Freeport]

Your premise is flawed. I do not believe atheists tend to be angrier than believers. If anything, you might find believers are angrier because of all the talk of sin and threats to conform to a very narrow belief system.

[Brianna]

Lisa. Good job.

I do think that some people are angry. Some of those people lack beliefs. I don't think anger is exclusive to a belief system. I also think that anger really is sometimes fear, or hurt or other things.

I don't think believers are more angry or less angry and I don't think you compare the issues.
Everyone has injustices to be angry about at one point and time.

I really don't think it has anything to do with our beliefs or lack of belief.

[Lisa0315]

Your premise is flawed. I do not believe atheists tend to be angrier than believers. If anything, you might find believers are angrier because of all the talk of sin and threats to conform to a very narrow belief system.

Where did I say that? Did I say that? I don't think I did. It certainly isn't my premise.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa. Good job.

I do think that some people are angry. Some of those people lack beliefs. I don't think anger is exclusive to a belief system. I also think that anger really is sometimes fear, or hurt or other things.

I don't think believers are more angry or less angry and I don't think you compare the issues.
Everyone has injustices to be angry about at one point and time.

I really don't think it has anything to do with our beliefs or lack of belief.

Y'all understand that I did not write this, but simply responded to what someone else wrote? Atheists and Anger was a homework assignment by the SC staff. I don't think that atheists are more angry than anyone else. I simply responded to what an atheist blogger wrote about her own anger.

Lisa

[Anne]

You know what this reminded me of?

The fact that I feel safer telling people I'm an atheist than I am a pagan.

Interesting Lisa. Thanks.

[Jobar]

You see, *this* is why I'm willing to defend you against those who attack your beliefs with insufficient analysis of those beliefs, when I'm an unbeliever myself. You are in no way a 'generic' believer. (No one is, really, although some do come close.)

I don't have time this morning to engage you in the depth this deserves. (In fact, this ought to be carried on in one of the higher forums, not SS. Religion? Philosophy? Religion I think, but consider where you would like it moved, Lisa.) And I'll certainly be spending more time in this discussion this evening.

[Lisa0315]

You see, *this* is why I'm willing to defend you against those who attack your beliefs with insufficient analysis of those beliefs, when I'm an unbeliever myself. You are in no way a 'generic' believer. (No one is, really, although some do come close.)

I don't have time this morning to engage you in the depth this deserves. (In fact, this ought to be carried on in one of the higher forums, not SS. Religion? Philosophy? Religion I think, but consider where you would like it moved, Lisa.) And I'll certainly be spending more time in this discussion this evening.

Whatever you think is most appropriate, Jobar.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

Some of your replies are a little flippant, IMO, and could use some research.

For instance:
I am angry that there was an attempt to de-personalize prayer so that military chaplains may not pray in Jesus name, and rabbis may not pray to God. Instead, there was an attempt to force them to call upon a generic nameless god, and this is directly against the beliefs of those chaplains, rabbis, and believer’s rights.
Except that it is unrealistic to expect the armed forces to try and find a 'spiritual guide' for every single religion/sect and provide them for the soldiers, and secondly, the military chaplains sign up knowing about the restrictions, and then violate those restrictions. That says a lot more about them than anything the military may have done for purely practical purposes.

I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism. And not a broad, "God had a hand in evolution" creationism, but a strict, young-earth, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" creationism.
Why does this make people so angry? Why do you care what people believe?
Because those same people keep trying to push those beliefs into the public schools.
Can someone show me a recent lawsuit in which a school board has had to fight for its right to teach evolution in schools?
How recent? Dover vs. Kitzmiller was just in 2005. There are ongoing cases coming to light all the time of teachers at the high school level teaching creationism, preaching in class, and other, similar behavior in contravention of the first amendment.
(re: abortion)What state is this? When did this happen?
Currently, in Kansas, one of the doctors at a clinic is being investigated and is continuously harrassed by anti-choice groups. Also, the new law in North Dakota (IIRC) that restricts abortion except in extreme cases. Google for details. :)
I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives.
Again, who does this???? Muslims maybe??? Okay, that pisses me off too, but why lump ALL religious people into this category?
No offense, but you need to get out more (aka, read more news). :p Many baptist sects, in particular are almost as bad as the muslims about this. And it doesn't have to be all religions to make it a bad thing. All of the Abrahamic traditions put men above women, and the scripture certainly supports it. Just because the more liberal traditions igmore or re-interpret that part of scipture doesn't mean it's not there.
Do you know how many sermons I have heard against this? We are to pray in the will of God FOR the will of God. If ignorant people pray for such bullshit, or if their special team wins and they give credit to God, well, it is a coincidence, not an answered prayer. God doesn’t give us better parking or help us to find our keys or help us to win the lottery. I know some may claim these things are from God, and there is nothing wrong with giving God the glory for every small good thing that comes, but it is not like God is moving traffic for us.
This response is good, but 1) it's a form of no true Scottsman fallacy, and 2) it still puts you in the minority, I'm sorry to say. :(

I can offer more critiques if you'd like. But the tl;dr version is that if more believers, or even a significant portion of them in the US, were more like you, the country would be much better off.

[Lisa0315]

I didn't mean to be flippant exactly. It was more like I just didn't understand parts of it, or parts didn't seem as valid as other parts. I don't know how to explain it. When I go back to re-read it, I do see the flippancy in the tone. It felt more like exasperation from my end and it shows, I guess.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

I didn't mean to be flippant exactly. It was more like I just didn't understand parts of it, or parts didn't seem as valid as other parts. I don't know how to explain it. When I go back to re-read it, I do see the flippancy in the tone. It felt more like exasperation from my end and it shows, I guess.

Lisa
I understand that, really I do.

And a few years ago, I wouldn't even have noticed. The combination of that last ~20 years of ever encroaching religiosity in government, and particular to me, moving to the midwest, has made me a lot more sensitive to people who seem dismissive of concerns as expressed by the author of that article. I recognize that article, by the way, but I don't remember the blog it came from.

Part of the reason also is that I've become a lot more involved in the 'battle' in particular of church/state separation, and the evolution/creation battle in schools, and I get a lot of the news and articles related to those issues, so I'm probably more aware of how prevalent it is.

Cheers.

[Lisa0315]

I didn't mean to be flippant exactly. It was more like I just didn't understand parts of it, or parts didn't seem as valid as other parts. I don't know how to explain it. When I go back to re-read it, I do see the flippancy in the tone. It felt more like exasperation from my end and it shows, I guess.

Lisa
I understand that, really I do.

And a few years ago, I wouldn't even have noticed. The combination of that last ~20 years of ever encroaching religiosity in government, and particular to me, moving to the midwest, has made me a lot more sensitive to people who seem dismissive of concerns as expressed by the author of that article. I recognize that article, by the way, but I don't remember the blog it came from.

Part of the reason also is that I've become a lot more involved in the 'battle' in particular of church/state separation, and the evolution/creation battle in schools, and I get a lot of the news and articles related to those issues, so I'm probably more aware of how prevalent it is.

Cheers.

Well, for prolly a different reason than you, I also "preach" against reinstating prayer in schools and such. I ask Christians who send me those e-mails petitions which prayers would they like to have? Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Pagan, Satanic? That generally gets them to shut up at the very least, and I never get a second e-mail from them.

At the same time, I was very glad that the movement to tax churches was not made into law. It didn't get far but to me that is equally a violation of the separation of church and state. If a church is paying taxes to the federal government, doesn't it stand to reason, that a corrupt government may be swayed by those denominations that send in the most?

Anyway, what I believe today and what I believed five years ago at the beginning of my belief is radically different. That is because I have listened to the complaints of atheists. I have watched them be treated worse than second-class citizens on CF. I have seen Christians behave like demons so filled with hatred that I could not stomach it.

Atheists have some valid points, but at the same time, the religious do too. We have to live among one another and we have to tolerate each other, more so, we need to have respect for each other's rights to believe or not to believe.

I would die for your right to disbelieve. I hope you would do the same for my right to worship God in the manner that I see fit assuming that it does not hurt anyone else, and when I say, hurt, I do not mean the very sight of a cross...Sorry, I do not buy the idea that looking at a cross hurts anyone. It may offend. It does not take away any rights.

Let us keep our crosses, our stars of David, our uhm, whatever the Muslims have, and you feel free to put up some symbol of your disbelief, whatever that may be.

Lisa

[Brianna]

Lisa. Good job.

I do think that some people are angry. Some of those people lack beliefs. I don't think anger is exclusive to a belief system. I also think that anger really is sometimes fear, or hurt or other things.

I don't think believers are more angry or less angry and I don't think you compare the issues.
Everyone has injustices to be angry about at one point and time.

I really don't think it has anything to do with our beliefs or lack of belief.

Y'all understand that I did not write this, but simply responded to what someone else wrote? Atheists and Anger was a homework assignment by the SC staff. I don't think that atheists are more angry than anyone else. I simply responded to what an atheist blogger wrote about her own anger.

Lisa

Yes. I did. I was just commenting in general. I liked what you wrote.

[Jobar]

Moving this to the Religion forum.

[Jobar]

Lisa, I still want to talk more about this, but I had a really hard day's work and I'm bushed. Consider this a rain check- and since it's supposed to rain more tomorrow here in Georgia, I'm sure I'll have plenty of time to give this thread the attention it deserves. Later. :)

[Worldtraveller]

I would die for your right to disbelieve. I hope you would do the same for my right to worship God in the manner that I see fit assuming that it does not hurt anyone else, and when I say, hurt, I do not mean the very sight of a cross...Sorry, I do not buy the idea that looking at a cross hurts anyone. It may offend. It does not take away any rights.
That's good to know. And I don't know a single atheist (not that there probably aren't some out there) who thinks we should forcibly eliminate religion.

The only time that I know of that atheist and religious but secular groups fight against religious displays is when it's on government land and is gov sponsored, like in schools, courthouses and other gov buildings.

[Bane]

Good posts, Lisa.

However:
It is true that some Christians DO pull the "martyr" card. I know most don't, but one cannot say that no Christian has done it--in fact, a lot at a certain site I used to post on did. I guessed, though, that the ones in the debate section were elaborate trolls. But the ones in non-debate areas, well, them I regarded as emo brats.

[Eudaimonist]

Lisa, the most angry atheists I have seen online almost invariably have very strongly Christian relatives who give them a hard time for their godlessness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Lisa0315]

Good posts, Lisa.

However:
It is true that some Christians DO pull the "martyr" card. I know most don't, but one cannot say that no Christian has done it--in fact, a lot at a certain site I used to post on did. I guessed, though, that the ones in the debate section were elaborate trolls. But the ones in non-debate areas, well, them I regarded as emo brats.

Oh, yeah, some definitely do. CF General Apologetics was nothing but one big martyr card game. It was shut down because the big bad atheists were asking too many questions and there were way too many deconversions over there.

I guess I am just asking that people set aside their past experiences when dealing with me, and I will do the same.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, the most angry atheists I have seen online almost invariably have very strongly Christian relatives who give them a hard time for their godlessness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The angriest atheist that I ever knew was Beastt. I got him to admit once that he had lost a lot (the love of his life) and blamed God for it. Naturally, he changed what he said once I pointed it out to him. One cannot disbelieve and blame God at the same time.

But yeah, before I was a Christian, I was very, very angry at my family and I absolutely hated Christians. I spent a lot of time pointing out hypocrisy to them, not online, but in real life which is a bit tougher, but I was so filled with hatred, I literally loved watching the pain in people's faces.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

But yeah, before I was a Christian, I was very, very angry at my family and I absolutely hated Christians. I spent a lot of time pointing out hypocrisy to them, not online, but in real life which is a bit tougher, but I was so filled with hatred, I literally loved watching the pain in people's faces.

Lisa
Why did becoming a christian change that? It sounds to me like, if this part is really true, your anger issues were not associated with atheism. And there may be a bit of projection of this on your part to those of us who are angry for more legitimate reasons.

I point out hypocrisy to lots of people, in real life, regardless what whether I even know their religious beliefs or not, but I rarely enjoy it.

I (and a lot of ahtiests and more sane religious people) do get angry, on an almost daily basis, and I can give you links as to why. Read my two favorite blogs on Seed, Pharyngula, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and you'll know why. However, 1) I feel the anger is justifed, and 2) I'm actually doing something about it on an almost daily basis.

[Lisa0315]

But yeah, before I was a Christian, I was very, very angry at my family and I absolutely hated Christians. I spent a lot of time pointing out hypocrisy to them, not online, but in real life which is a bit tougher, but I was so filled with hatred, I literally loved watching the pain in people's faces.

Lisa
Why did becoming a christian change that? It sounds to me like, if this part is really true, your anger issues were not associated with atheism. And there may be a bit of projection of this on your part to those of us who are angry for more legitimate reasons.

I point out hypocrisy to lots of people, in real life, regardless what whether I even know their religious beliefs or not, but I rarely enjoy it.

I (and a lot of ahtiests and more sane religious people) do get angry, on an almost daily basis, and I can give you links as to why. Read my two favorite blogs on Seed, Pharyngula, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and you'll know why. However, 1) I feel the anger is justifed, and 2) I'm actually doing something about it on an almost daily basis.

Becoming a Christian requires you to forgive people. I had been hurt, physically and psychologically by Christians. Forgiving those people relieved me of my anger. Anger, for me at least, is very self-destructive.

Lisa

[sohy]

Atheists have some valid points, but at the same time, the religious do too. We have to live among one another and we have to tolerate each other, more so, we need to have respect for each other's rights to believe or not to believe.


Amen Lisa!

I'm not an angry atheist. I sometimes find the angry atheists very annoying. I don't believe that anger is a very useful emotion. I think I read once that there is even evidence that anger raises blood levels of certain hormones that have a negative impact on our circulatory system if secreted in large amounts. I also think the writer of the blog may have over used the word anger. I think Jobar and I once had a passionate discussion about this writer's blog. Maybe he remembers it. :D

I've even limited my attendance in certain atheist groups and dropped my membership in others, simply because of the anger. I would like to see my fellow atheists spend more time emphasizing the positive things that we have in common with each other. Bashing religion gets very old, very quickly.

At the risk of being considered a heretic, I'll go as far as to say that there are many things about religion that I like and I think it would be boring if we were all atheists. Oooops. Look at the time. I've gotta go for now. Later.

[Lisa0315]

Atheists have some valid points, but at the same time, the religious do too. We have to live among one another and we have to tolerate each other, more so, we need to have respect for each other's rights to believe or not to believe.


Amen Lisa!

I'm not an angry atheist. I sometimes find the angry atheists very annoying. I don't believe that anger is a very useful emotion. I think I read once that there is even evidence that anger raises blood levels of certain hormones that have a negative impact on our circulatory system if secreted in large amounts. I also think the writer of the blog may have over used the word anger. I think Jobar and I once had a passionate discussion about this writer's blog. Maybe he remembers it. :D

I've even limited my attendance in certain atheist groups and dropped my membership in others, simply because of the anger. I would like to see my fellow atheists spend more time emphasizing the positive things that we have in common with each other. Bashing religion gets very old, very quickly.

At the risk of being considered a heretic, I'll go as far as to say that there are many things about religion that I like and I think it would be boring if we were all atheists. Oooops. Look at the time. I've gotta go for now. Later.

Oh, you ARE a heretic!!! I like it! :D

[Eudaimonist]

I believe that anger is useful... in moderation. Some things should make you angry. Anger can provide motivation for one to do something about the problem.

There is only a problem when anger leads one to focus on the negatives of life to the exclusion of the positives, and to dwell on anger far longer than necessary to take some constructive action in response to the source of anger.

So I don't blame anyone for being angry, but I respect anyone for being productive in the face of anger, and to keep the anger limited in duration.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Lisa0315]

I believe that anger is useful... in moderation. Some things should make you angry. Anger can provide motivation for one to do something about the problem.

There is only a problem when anger leads one to focus on the negatives of life to the exclusion of the positives, and to dwell on anger far longer than necessary to take some constructive action in response to the source of anger.

So I don't blame anyone for being angry, but I respect anyone for being productive in the face of anger, and to keep the anger limited in duration.


eudaimonia,

Mark

^^^This!

[Bane]

Good posts, Lisa.

However:
It is true that some Christians DO pull the "martyr" card. I know most don't, but one cannot say that no Christian has done it--in fact, a lot at a certain site I used to post on did. I guessed, though, that the ones in the debate section were elaborate trolls. But the ones in non-debate areas, well, them I regarded as emo brats.

Oh, yeah, some definitely do. CF General Apologetics was nothing but one big martyr card game. It was shut down because the big bad atheists were asking too many questions and there were way too many deconversions over there.

I guess I am just asking that people set aside their past experiences when dealing with me, and I will do the same.

Lisa
Yes. I totally understand that and agree.:)

ETA: I thought GA was actually closed due to a real problem with flaming--by PC_F, SoF and others as much as whoever the angry atheists were.

[dancer_rnb]

One problem a lot of people have with anger is dropping it on the correct target.
Of course, sometimes there is a question of whether a person isn't a legitimate target
for anger, and if a better response isn't explaining the implications of their position. Which they often won't like.......

[Lisa0315]

Good posts, Lisa.

However:
It is true that some Christians DO pull the "martyr" card. I know most don't, but one cannot say that no Christian has done it--in fact, a lot at a certain site I used to post on did. I guessed, though, that the ones in the debate section were elaborate trolls. But the ones in non-debate areas, well, them I regarded as emo brats.

Oh, yeah, some definitely do. CF General Apologetics was nothing but one big martyr card game. It was shut down because the big bad atheists were asking too many questions and there were way too many deconversions over there.

I guess I am just asking that people set aside their past experiences when dealing with me, and I will do the same.

Lisa
Yes. I totally understand that and agree.:)

ETA: I thought GA was actually closed due to a real problem with flaming--by PC_F, SoF and others as much as whoever the angry atheists were.

GA was closed because LeeD was a fucktard who decided CF should be about Inreach instead of Outreach. He invited atheists to ask questions, but they were not allowed to debate "endlessly". I wish I had a copy of the post he made explaining how it was not going to be a "comfortable" place for atheists anymore. It was not about angry atheists. It was about Christians who wouldn't know The Great Commission from their own assholes. I still SEETHE over the closure of GA. I will NEVER get over it.

Lisa

[Ronin]

I find this a bit of emotionalism rather than a valid reason to be angry. American troops are not shooting each other because of belief or lack of belief.

I am angry that there was an attempt to de-personalize prayer so that military chaplains may not pray in Jesus name, and rabbis may not pray to God. Instead, there was an attempt to force them to call upon a generic nameless god, and this is directly against the beliefs of those chaplains, rabbis, and believer’s rights.

This is simply not accurate at all.

The only requirement that is being offered is to generalize rituals when presenting them in venues that all personnel (with relative views that may differ) are required to or must attend.

The troops are being evangelized in the field, at meals, at award ceremonies and generally ostracized if they speak up or don’t participate.

They are having their honor, service and character called into question and their lives and careers put at risk.

My view is that the chaplains and the rabbis and the imams should just go to their own wild wigwams of worship and throw their chicken bones there.

Stop the territorial spraying on every damn tree in sight.

I was born in 1967, so address the generation before me.

This is flippant and generally dismissive of the foundational xenophobia and irrational fear that Christianity is founded upon and practiced by adherents.

Why does this make people so angry? Why do you care what people believe?

It makes me more proactive and vocal because creationism is myth and fantasy.

The truth is that folks aren’t just passively “believing” in it either, they are injecting it into our educational system and presenting legislation imposing the flawed concept into reality.

Can someone show me a recent lawsuit in which a school board has had to fight for its right to teach evolution in schools?

Yes.

It is being fought on several fronts in courts and in several states. Fortunately, they are losing. I just took part in killing a bill in Mississippi that was on its way to doing just that.

Here is the most recent:

Texas (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/03/30/texas-schools-face-the-evolution-debate.html)

What state is this? When did this happen?

Mississippi is one. (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/28/us/abortions-harder-to-get-in-rural-areas-of-nation.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FS ubjects%2FA%2FAbortion)

This has been going on for quite some time.

Other than that, the whole nature of this post reflects the dismissive attitude that is precisely what I find flawed and rather nonsensical once examined closer (though consistent with Christians in general).

Many liberal adherents and mystic types tend to react to the itemizing of evidence and presented examples of what dangers are present within religious ideologies as if it is always “the flawed person” who is not promoting “real” Christianity or that the religious history of homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and oppression of human liberty is oh so long since in the deep, dark past that modern “Christians” are surely not to be held responsible for that in spite of the current homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny and oppression of human liberty still blatantly present.

In short, the most frustrating nuance with the approach in this OP is that the smallest of exceptions (barely in existence at all) is offered as a way to dismiss the rather obvious more general religious failings, hypocrisy and outright deception that is used on a daily basis to encroach upon our social services, educational institutions and legislative decrees negatively affecting our human liberty.

I like Lisa as a person and do understand now that she may just be a bit naïve, I suppose.

To me the best analogy that is a pertinent summation is that of the mobster wife who loves her murderous husband because he treats the kids well on their birthdays and he consistently pays the cable bill so she finds ways to justify or avoid all of his other nefarious activities.

[Jobar]

I believe that anger is useful... in moderation. Some things should make you angry. Anger can provide motivation for one to do something about the problem.

There is only a problem when anger leads one to focus on the negatives of life to the exclusion of the positives, and to dwell on anger far longer than necessary to take some constructive action in response to the source of anger.

So I don't blame anyone for being angry, but I respect anyone for being productive in the face of anger, and to keep the anger limited in duration.

Yes, exactly.

I've often quoted the line "Anger is a useful servant, but a bad master." Anger at injustice, at human cussedness, at ignorance, at evil- we can use that to fuel action against those things.

We have to be careful how much anger we allow ourselves. Anger does release the flight-or-fight hormones which sohy speaks of. Those chemicals can and often do cause us to react in inappropriate and counterproductive ways; they are meant to help us meet immediate physical threats, and if we can't act directly against the sources of our anger it can turn on us. Instead of burning up our anger through physical action, the anger can burn *us* up.

We have to be able to control our anger, and not let it control us.

One of the inappropriate things anger can lead us to do, is to aim it poorly.

In modern society we may never be in reach of the true source of our anger; the televangelist who preaches hatred and cons his poor naive congregation is on screen, and our totally justifiable fury at him can't be used on him directly, as we'd want to. We have to chill that anger and calm ourselves, and not let it build up so that it explodes on the innocent ones close to us.

And that may include those tainted with the same evil that inspires our anger; the ones duped by the televangelist's sermons may be in our reach, but we have to withhold the full weight of our anger from falling on them. Even if they're part of the problem, in all likelihood they're a *very small* part of the problem; laying all our anger on them is useless and will work against the ends which would alleviate that anger.

All the things which Greta Christina refers to are just causes for the hot anger of us atheists. But to fix those things, we have to act with cool deliberation and forethought.

[Danhalen]

Becoming a Christian requires you to forgive people. I had been hurt, physically and psychologically by Christians. Forgiving those people relieved me of my anger. Anger, for me at least, is very self-destructive.The deepest wound I have ever received was only healed through my forgiving of the person who had wounded me. It was not a matter of being required to forgive, because I'm not a Christian. I forgave because I love the person who harmed me. I forgave because I could not move on until I did. I still become angry from time to time, but I still forgive. Forgiveness is not even close to a uniquely Christian trait.

[Goldie]

Becoming a Christian requires you to forgive people. I had been hurt, physically and psychologically by Christians. Forgiving those people relieved me of my anger. Anger, for me at least, is very self-destructive.The deepest wound I have ever received was only healed through my forgiving of the person who had wounded me. It was not a matter of being required to forgive, because I'm not a Christian. I forgave because I love the person who harmed me. I forgave because I could not move on until I did. I still become angry from time to time, but I still forgive. Forgiveness is not even close to a uniquely Christian trait.


I can speak to that as well. As an atheist I forgave someone who tortured me from the time I was 8 until the time I was 13.
I forgave him for my own sanity. I haven't forgotten, but I have forgiven him...and I can tell you, it's a forgiveness that no one who knows me, not even my husband can understand.

Forgiveness is NOT uniquely Christian. Forgiving someone because you HAVE to is really not forgiveness IMO.

[Cliché Guevara]

I still SEETHE over the closure of GA. I will NEVER get over it.

Lisa

Don't be angry. Forgive them, for they know not what they do. :D


I believe myself to be a very forgiving person - maybe even too forgiving sometimes. And I've never been a Christian. :dunno:

[JamesBannon]

Lisa, the most angry atheists I have seen online almost invariably have very strongly Christian relatives who give them a hard time for their godlessness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The angriest atheist that I ever knew was Beastt. I got him to admit once that he had lost a lot (the love of his life) and blamed God for it. Naturally, he changed what he said once I pointed it out to him. One cannot disbelieve and blame God at the same time.

But yeah, before I was a Christian, I was very, very angry at my family and I absolutely hated Christians. I spent a lot of time pointing out hypocrisy to them, not online, but in real life which is a bit tougher, but I was so filled with hatred, I literally loved watching the pain in people's faces.

Lisa

What's that got to with anything? I'll bet you were angry @ something else. Whatever it was, believing in god didn't make it go way, you did.

[sohy]

I'm not going to claim that all atheists are forgiving, but I'm a pretty forgiving person too. It's liberating to forgive, move on and not hold a grudge.

[Bane]

Oh, yeah, some definitely do. CF General Apologetics was nothing but one big martyr card game. It was shut down because the big bad atheists were asking too many questions and there were way too many deconversions over there.

I guess I am just asking that people set aside their past experiences when dealing with me, and I will do the same.

Lisa
Yes. I totally understand that and agree.:)

ETA: I thought GA was actually closed due to a real problem with flaming--by PC_F, SoF and others as much as whoever the angry atheists were.

GA was closed because LeeD was a fucktard who decided CF should be about Inreach instead of Outreach. He invited atheists to ask questions, but they were not allowed to debate "endlessly". I wish I had a copy of the post he made explaining how it was not going to be a "comfortable" place for atheists anymore. It was not about angry atheists. It was about Christians who wouldn't know The Great Commission from their own assholes. I still SEETHE over the closure of GA. I will NEVER get over it.

Lisa

LeeD's an asshat. He can go fuck a cactus. As can all the damn fundies.

[Cliché Guevara]

It's liberating to forgive, move on and not hold a grudge.

Ne'er a truer word be spoke.

With or without God/s.

[Worldtraveller]

From http://www.ruthless.zathras.de/fun/babylon5/crusadequotes.php
Gideon: "He's a technomage. They like that. He appears when you want him least and need him most..."
Galen: "I want you to know Matthew, I heard that bit about my only showing up when most needed and least wanted! Good thing for you, that I don't hold a grudge."
Gideon: "Yes you do."
Galen: "Never contradict a technomage, when he's saving your life again!"
Gideon: "I thought you said you don't hold a grudge?"
Galen: "I don't. I have no surviving enemies ... at all."
My approach to grudges....

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

I got him to admit once that he had lost a lot (the love of his life) and blamed God for it. Naturally, he changed what he said once I pointed it out to him. One cannot disbelieve and blame God at the same time.
Says who?

OK right, the obvious question being "if no god exists, who would you be blaming?" But "god" in those cases can become a convenient black box holding tank for all the influences in one's life that led one to have ever held any false hope of a religious nature at all, even if it went unexpressed, and the sum of that can come out as "blaming God".

Grief does strange things in the brain. We can mourn a loved one's passing and still have an irrational part of ourselves ANGRY at them for "abandoning" us. Even while we know that to be irrational. Feelings do not consist of rational propositions but of raw reactions. "Blaming God" in that sense does not have to be rational nor even rely on God existing. It can be blaming him in part for NOT existing ... just like anger at someone who no longer exists can be, in part, blaming them for their having gone absent (died). It would not be uncommon for someone raised to believe a god existed or raised being told one existed to have a reaction of that nature in tandem with disbelief.

[Zygote]

I'm not going to claim that all atheists are forgiving, but I'm a pretty forgiving person too. It's liberating to forgive, move on and not hold a grudge.

Nor are all Christians forgiving, although some may want to believe such.

People migrate toward a belief system that suits their disposition - and then tend to credit that belief system for forming or shaping that disposition.

[diana]

In all fairness, I only read some of it. But here's a tweak:

I'm angry that atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml) by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to proselytize on military bases (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/more_aggressive_proselytizing.php) -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/update_on_military_atheism_law.php) from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces. And I'm angry that Christians still say smug, sanctimonious things like, "there are no atheists in foxholes." You know why you're not seeing atheists in foxholes? Because believers are threatening to shoot them if they come out.
I find this a bit of emotionalism rather than a valid reason to be angry. American troops are not shooting each other because of belief or lack of belief.
I am angry that there was an attempt to de-personalize prayer so that military chaplains may not pray in Jesus name, and rabbis may not pray to God. Instead, there was an attempt to force them to call upon a generic nameless god, and this is directly against the beliefs of those chaplains, rabbis, and believer’s rights. Um, no.

You're correct that there was a (failed) attempt to depersonalize public prayer, which is as it should be and is no violation of the rights of any given chaplain. No one walked into his place of worship or into his home and required that he stop praying in Jesus' name. But when it's a public invocation, yes....

Now, should I, as a military member in a compulsory formation attending the ceremony with the public invocation, have to listen to that shit? No. Keep your religion private and I'll have nothing to say about it. But when I have to listen to anyone blather on publicly--particularly when I have to attend--about his religious convictions, I reserve the right to be angry.

It would be a bit like you having to attend a business meeting, say, and having to endure the chairman praying to Allah. It isn't a violation of his rights to require him to shut up about his religion in a business environment. It's a violation of yours if you have to endure it.

Also, the first bit of the post you quoted is true: there was a well-documented (and reported) account of a soldier in Iraq whose Freethinker meeting was broken up by a "Christian" superior officer. IIRC, the soldier was also threatened. It isn't emotionalism--it's true.

And as I am an atheist who has been in the line of fire, I also become incensed when any Christian says there are no atheists in foxholes. Such a comment is presumptuous, ignorant, and insulting.

d

[Barefoot Bree]

I'm not going to claim that all atheists are forgiving, but I'm a pretty forgiving person too. It's liberating to forgive, move on and not hold a grudge.

I don't want to derail this fine thread, but I'm curious about something.

Is there an appreciable difference between forgiving and letting go?

I let go of stuff and move on all the time. But my gut tells me that forgiving is something a little more - a positive love-bomb at the person, kind of, while letting go is simply that - removing it mentally from the scenery.

Do y'all agree? Or do you think they are the same thing?

[DMB]

It's one of those words like "love" which can be interpreted differently by different people. In my own understanding of the word, the only people I truly forgive are those that I love or like a lot. With people I don't have warm emotions towards, I tend to move on, because letting it gnaw away at me is not a good thing for me.

[Barefoot Bree]

To return to the OP, I think that many of your responses, Lisa, kind of missed the point - the ones where you said "Yeah, some individuals do this, but that's no reason to be angry at religion in general."

One, all of those little things do add up to a total picture. My life sucks right now for a whole host of reasons, some bigger than others. Each little thing would not be a reason to hate life, but added together, they sure are. Each adds its small amount of suckage.

And Two, though this may engender a whole new deep debate, it is my contention that the established formal religious organizations, particularly the Christian ones (though not limited to them), through their history, their collective tenets, and their very basis, deliberately and directly foster the behaviors and attitudes exemplified within the bloggers list.

One of the most important and forceful, though mostly unrecognized, tendencies of Christianity in particular is its ingrouping. The moment you move beyond Christ's central message of love and kindness to all, the message immediately moves into subtle and not-so-subtle Us vs. Them mode. We are going to heaven, everyone else is going to hell. One of the largest differences between sects (and individual believers) is where that line is drawn; how small the chosen group is and how forgiving God is to those outside the circle.

And that ingrouping impulse leads directly to every bit of the discrimination, hatred, cruelty, etc, to out-groups and the individual members thereof, both at the church level and the individual level. Every one of the blogger's listed triggers can be melted down to ingrouping and exclusivity. Show me one that isn't.

And that's my biggest grievance against and objection to Christianity.

(A bit of background: I'm the daughter of a Methodist minister who is no longer in that profession, but still very active in the church. I, however, am a lifelong atheist - I realized in my teens that for some reason I seem to be incapable of faith or belief in anything supernatural. As a preacher's kid, I'm pretty well versed in the basics, but nowhere near an expert on the bible. My parents are the liberal type, and the most open and non-judgemental people I've ever met. So I do not have a knee-jerk reaction to individual Christians, but to the displays of unthinking, automatic, fundamentalist, closed-minded prejudice of which I speak above.)

[sohy]

And that ingrouping impulse leads directly to every bit of the discrimination, hatred, cruelty, etc, to out-groups and the individual members thereof, both at the church level and the individual level. Every one of the blogger's listed triggers can be melted down to ingrouping and exclusivity. Show me one that isn't.

I agree. It's all about extreme ingrouping. That is why I am not usually even bothered by religion, but I am when ingrouping becomes harmful to others. Ingrouping is a human universal. When it becomes extreme, it should be criticized.

I'm not suggesting we should remain quiet when we feel we are being discriminated against. I just can't get angry about the many small injustices that happen everyday to some of us. Imo, and it's only my opinion, episodes like the Taliban beating the young woman this past week, are worthy of a strong response, even an angry one. Maybe I just have a very high bar when it comes to perceiving things that are enough to make me angry. Anger has never served any usefulness for me, so I try to avoid it.

[diana]

To return to the OP, I think that many of your responses, Lisa, kind of missed the point...Above and beyond BB's excellent post, I'd like to acknowledge this comment and point out that all of your responses, Lisa--at least, before I stopped reading--apparently stem from an extreme personal defensiveness instead of an effort at understanding. I don't know the nature of the "assignment," but I'm guessing an appreciation of the other person's point of view is it, and you can't defend yourself and reach out at the same time.

I know, based upon your first response to me in this forum, that you appreciate empathy and an effort to understand (as opposed to defensiveness) when it comes to atheist/agnostic arguments against your posted beliefs. Now the table is turned. You try it.

d

[Jobar]

Diana, it started- well, kinda- here. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=15567&#post15567) I offered that blog as suggested reading so that Lisa might better understand why some people *coughRonincough* were responding to her with, shall we say, less than a cool demeanor.

I got several pats on the back for that post, by the way. :)

[diana]

Becoming a Christian requires you to forgive people. I had been hurt, physically and psychologically by Christians. Forgiving those people relieved me of my anger. Anger, for me at least, is very self-destructive.The deepest wound I have ever received was only healed through my forgiving of the person who had wounded me. It was not a matter of being required to forgive, because I'm not a Christian. I forgave because I love the person who harmed me. I forgave because I could not move on until I did. I still become angry from time to time, but I still forgive. Forgiveness is not even close to a uniquely Christian trait.Slight tangent here, but I just wanted to mention: How do you forgive someone simply because you've decided to forgive? To me, this is like actually believing just because you choose to (which is, at least for me, impossible).

I can tell myself I forgive someone, but unless they make some effort to meet me halfway, it ends up just being a lie I tell myself. I can't make me forgive. For me, my forgiveness has to be a response to an effort on his part to make amends.

It's entirely possible that I'm just a bitch.

I'm bored. I think I'll wade through the tl;dr posts and respond thoughtfully.

d

[diana]

Diana, it started- well, kinda- here. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=15567&#post15567) I offered that blog as suggested reading so that Lisa might better understand why some people *coughRonincough* were responding to her with, shall we say, less than a cool demeanor.Ah. So I assumed rightly. (I figured it had something to do with Ronin, but didn't realize until page 2 that an admin had assigned the reading.)

d

[diana]

Changed my mind. Not worth the full response. I'd rather read a good book. One comment will cover my main point:

And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them.You did this very thing through all three of your OPs, carefully aiming at the trees while you consistently missed the forest.

d

[Lisa0315]

Changed my mind. Not worth the full response. I'd rather read a good book. One comment will cover my main point:

And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them.You did this very thing through all three of your OPs, carefully aiming at the trees while you consistently missed the forest.

d

I did my best. I took the time. I am still here.

You seem predisposed to judge me without actually talking to me. Second, you have read the OP, but not any of the discussions since then.

My position is this: Atheists have a right to be angry at religion in general. However, I cannot bear the burden for the sins of every individual of every religion since the dawn of man. Therefore, the anger directed towards me as an individual is unjust.

Lisa

[Barefoot Bree]

Slight reformat, no words changed.


My position is this:

1. Atheists have a right to be angry at religion in general.

2. However, I cannot bear the burden for the sins of every individual of every religion since the dawn of man.

3. Therefore, the anger directed towards me as an individual is unjust.

Lisa

My responses:

1. You betcha. And thanks.

2. Absolutely. That would be absolutely unfair. (Trying oh so hard not to draw the parallel between that statement and a certain well-known crucifixion. And failing.)

3. Whoops! Noooot quite. Anger directed towards you if you did not partake in or condone the behavior which engendered said anger is unjust. But then again, who ever sees themselves as clearly as others do? Could be you're not quite as guiltless as you might like to think. (I don't mean that as harshly as it probably sounds. We're all guilty of behaviors we'd rather not admit to, even/especially to ourselves.)

ETA: unfortunately, like it or not, we are every one of us de facto representatives of whatever group we are members of, to whomever we come into contact with in that context. On this board, I am one representative of Atheism. You are one representative of Christianity. And it is the unfair burden of all representatives to bear the sins of all our brethren. You wear the flag, you become the target - unless you can demonstrate persuasively that you do NOT represent or condone whatever detail it is being targeted.

[David B]

Hang in there, Lisa:)

You've come a long way already, and you understand atheists, many of whom are your friends here, and in other places, much better than you did.

And your Christianity is much less fundie than it was.

You're doing fine.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that.

David

[Barefoot Bree]

Since David B snuck in with another post before I mentally finished my next ETA, I'll put it into a new post, instead.

Lisa, many of your OP points do indeed demonstrate that you do not represent or condone that behavior, and most of the rest I thought were misunderstandings. I gladly add you to my personal list of Good People.

[Lisa0315]

Slight reformat, no words changed.


My position is this:

1. Atheists have a right to be angry at religion in general.

2. However, I cannot bear the burden for the sins of every individual of every religion since the dawn of man.

3. Therefore, the anger directed towards me as an individual is unjust.

Lisa

My responses:

1. You betcha. And thanks.

2. Absolutely. That would be absolutely unfair. (Trying oh so hard not to draw the parallel between that statement and a certain well-known crucifixion. And failing.)

3. Whoops! Noooot quite. Anger directed towards you if you did not partake in or condone the behavior which engendered said anger is unjust. But then again, who ever sees themselves as clearly as others do? Could be you're not quite as guiltless as you might like to think. (I don't mean that as harshly as it probably sounds. We're all guilty of behaviors we'd rather not admit to, even/especially to ourselves.)

ETA: unfortunately, like it or not, we are every one of us de facto representatives of whatever group we are members of, to whomever we come into contact with in that context. On this board, I am one representative of Atheism. You are one representative of Christianity. And it is the unfair burden of all representatives to bear the sins of all our brethren. You wear the flag, you become the target - unless you can demonstrate persuasively that you do NOT represent or condone whatever detail it is being targeted.

Fair enough. All I have asked is to be judged based on my behavior and posts here, not on what I might or might not represent based on a group that I belong to.

As I have said...we all reside on the same planet. We have to learn to get along. There is danger that a group mentality, ANY group mentality, will result in unfair treatment of individuals. This is as true for a group of atheists as it is for a group of Christians. It is certainly human nature, and it is probably some prehistoric survival instinct that we have to overcome.

The pack is not in danger from me. The pack might be in danger, and right to protect themselves, if my pack were here too. However, they are not. I am not here to convert, to judge or anything like that. I followed friends here. CF--->IIDB---Talk Rational----Secular Cafe.

Lisa

[diana]

Changed my mind. Not worth the full response. I'd rather read a good book. One comment will cover my main point:

And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them.You did this very thing through all three of your OPs, carefully aiming at the trees while you consistently missed the forest.

d

I did my best. I took the time. I am still here.Since you spent most of your energies doing exactly what I said you did (bolded, above)--and which is, ironically, typical Christian behavior--I hope for your sake that it wasn't your best.

You seem predisposed to judge me without actually talking to me.Um. I am talking to you. I've been talking to you. But that's beside the point, really. I feel predisposed to judge George Bush, based on the dumbass things he's said (among other things), and I don't feel that I need to talk to him draw reasonable conclusions regarding his intelligence and attitude. If I read three lengthy posts of yours in this thread (and many more of your posts in other threads) but never talk to you, that does not disqualify my opinion regarding your attitude and intelligence.

Second, you have read the OP, but not any of the discussions since then.Incorrect.

My position is this: Atheists have a right to be angry at religion in general.Yep. Thanks. And at the perpetrators of it.

However, I cannot bear the burden for the sins of every individual of every religion since the dawn of man.Of course. I never said you were.

So when you're sent to a blog entry, presumably to garner a greater understanding of why atheists are angry, why do you respond as though you are being accused of every single entry? How does your reaction--to respond as though you have been accused of every single entry--help you understand why we are angry?

Therefore, the anger directed towards me as an individual is unjust.If I direct anger toward you, you can be assured that it's because you're being nasty.

d

[Lisa0315]

Changed my mind. Not worth the full response. I'd rather read a good book. One comment will cover my main point:

You did this very thing through all three of your OPs, carefully aiming at the trees while you consistently missed the forest.

d

I did my best. I took the time. I am still here.Since you spent most of your energies doing exactly what I said you did (bolded, above)--and which is, ironically, typical Christian behavior--I hope for your sake that it wasn't your best.

Um. I am talking to you. I've been talking to you. But that's beside the point, really. I feel predisposed to judge George Bush, based on the dumbass things he's said (among other things), and I don't feel that I need to talk to him draw reasonable conclusions regarding his intelligence and attitude. If I read three lengthy posts of yours in this thread (and many more of your posts in other threads) but never talk to you, that does not disqualify my opinion regarding your attitude and intelligence.

Incorrect.

Yep. Thanks. And at the perpetrators of it.

However, I cannot bear the burden for the sins of every individual of every religion since the dawn of man.Of course. I never said you were.

So when you're sent to a blog entry, presumably to garner a greater understanding of why atheists are angry, why do you respond as though you are being accused of every single entry? How does your reaction--to respond as though you have been accused of every single entry--help you understand why we are angry?

Therefore, the anger directed towards me as an individual is unjust.If I direct anger toward you, you can be assured that it's because you're being nasty.

d

I didn't need to read the blog to understand why atheists are angry. I have spent the last four years online talking to atheists.

I have found that people of all creeds and beliefs rarely admit when they are wrong. I have found that intellectual honesty is pretty rare.

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.

Lisa

[diana]

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d

[Danhalen]

Slight tangent here, but I just wanted to mention: How do you forgive someone simply because you've decided to forgive? To me, this is like actually believing just because you choose to (which is, at least for me, impossible).You simply accept the circumstances for what they are and move past them. For me, it's easier to let go of anger and ask for affection to help heal my wounds. Forgiveness does not require anything except the agent to commit to it.

I can tell myself I forgive someone, but unless they make some effort to meet me halfway, it ends up just being a lie I tell myself. I can't make me forgive. For me, my forgiveness has to be a response to an effort on his part to make amends.I've never felt forgiveness was a response to anything external. It's always been a response to my internal mental state.

It's entirely possible that I'm just a bitch.Yeah, but I forgive you.

[DMB]

<Mod Note: I think there's a lot of misunderstanding washing around in this thread. Can you please keep to replying to arguments and not make it personal?>

[Lisa0315]

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d

Bullshit. Take responsibility. Do you want to know WHY I might be flippant on occasion? Just this kind of post right here.

Guess what? You are not a victim. You are not being persecuted. Stop acting like it.

Lisa

[Criada]

I am enjoying this discussion, both sides have made some good points, and as one who has been on the atheist side and the Christian side, and am currently in a no-man's land somewhere between, I find it helpful.
Please don't let it disintegrate into petty squabbling.. there are those who are currently trying to work through this stuff, and reading this does help :)

[Lisa0315]

I am enjoying this discussion, both sides have made some good points, and as one who has been on the atheist side and the Christian side, and am currently in a no-man's land somewhere between, I find it helpful.
Please don't let it disintegrate into petty squabbling.. there are those who are currently trying to work through this stuff, and reading this does help :)

The ironic thing, Cri, is you are one of the best Christians I know. Hell, you are one of the best PEOPLE I know. I need to sit at your feet and learn.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d

Bullshit. Take responsibility. Do you want to know WHY I might be flippant on occasion? Just this kind of post right here.

Guess what? You are not a victim. You are not being persecuted. Stop acting like it.

Lisa
While I can understand a bit of your ire, here, Lisa, I think you, unfortunately made d's point for her.

You deny any responsibility for how all those other xians act, but when criticism is levelled at you, you react just as badly and just as defensively, whether it's specific or generlized criticism.

We alldo this to varying degrees, but kneejerk defensiveness does not lead to greater understanding.

[Worldtraveller]

Since you asked earlier about whether or not non-xians were being subjected against their will to proseltyzing, I present this case (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/air_force_officer_cleared_of_w.php) for your review.

Note, in particular, this comment (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/air_force_officer_cleared_of_w.php#comment-1532218) from Chris Rodda, a woman who has been very active in this feild and who works closely with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
What's omitted here is that an airman DID try to file a formal complaint, but wasn't allowed to. This is one of the reasons that service members turn to MRFF, and why MRFF has filed a lawsuit in federal court. This is yet another example showing that attempting to go through military channels does not work. As long as the military blocks service members from being able to file complaints, they can keep using bogus statistics like they've only had 50 complaints filed over religious issues. Of course they would have this unrealistically low number of official complaints filed if they don't allow those who try to file complaints to file them. MRFF has been contacted for assistance by over 11,000 service members, but the military have had only 50 complaints filed. Why is there this huge disparity in the numbers? Two reasons: 1) Service members are afraid that complaining will have consequences and negatively affect their careers; and, 2) Service members who do want to file formal complaints are being blocked from doing so.
There's a reason for everyone, not just atheists, to be angry.

[Lisa0315]

And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d

Bullshit. Take responsibility. Do you want to know WHY I might be flippant on occasion? Just this kind of post right here.

Guess what? You are not a victim. You are not being persecuted. Stop acting like it.

Lisa
While I can understand a bit of your ire, here, Lisa, I think you, unfortunately made d's point for her.

You deny any responsibility for how all those other xians act, but when criticism is levelled at you, you react just as badly and just as defensively, whether it's specific or generlized criticism.

We alldo this to varying degrees, but kneejerk defensiveness does not lead to greater understanding.

Again, I take responsibility for MY actions, but I do NOT take responsibility for being the object of anger that is directed at a group that I may or may not be a part of.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Since you asked earlier about whether or not non-xians were being subjected against their will to proseltyzing, I present this case (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/air_force_officer_cleared_of_w.php) for your review.

Note, in particular, this comment (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/air_force_officer_cleared_of_w.php#comment-1532218) from Chris Rodda, a woman who has been very active in this feild and who works closely with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
What's omitted here is that an airman DID try to file a formal complaint, but wasn't allowed to. This is one of the reasons that service members turn to MRFF, and why MRFF has filed a lawsuit in federal court. This is yet another example showing that attempting to go through military channels does not work. As long as the military blocks service members from being able to file complaints, they can keep using bogus statistics like they've only had 50 complaints filed over religious issues. Of course they would have this unrealistically low number of official complaints filed if they don't allow those who try to file complaints to file them. MRFF has been contacted for assistance by over 11,000 service members, but the military have had only 50 complaints filed. Why is there this huge disparity in the numbers? Two reasons: 1) Service members are afraid that complaining will have consequences and negatively affect their careers; and, 2) Service members who do want to file formal complaints are being blocked from doing so.
There's a reason for everyone, not just atheists, to be angry.

Yes, and I acknowledge the right of those service members to file complaints. Second, I voted against the religious right this year. So, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with me. My values are more in line with atheistic ones than with traditional Christian ones.

So, going back to the whole Ronin/Diana thing, I refuse to be lumped into a category that only partly describes me.

Lisa

[Lanakila]

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d
Actually it's human. It's done by many especially on message boards where communication is only through text. Without tone of voice and facial expressions it's really hard to tell what someones attitude is. I had this happen the other night with Goodchild via pm. He thought I was angry by my words when I was actually crying and hurt and this was via pm. Giving others the benefit of the doubt when using this medium is probably a good course of action. I've seen misunderstanding after misunderstanding happen on message boards when the cause is the misreading what someone feels by reading the words and our own interpretation of them based on a multitude of factors.

Lisa used to be a fundamentalist. She was kind to atheists even then. She's more liberal now and still kind to atheists. It's not her fault that all believers aren't, any more than it's my fault that all atheists aren't kind.

[Worldtraveller]

So, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with me.
I only posted that in response to this in your first post:
I find this a bit of emotionalism rather than a valid reason to be angry. American troops are not shooting each other because of belief or lack of belief.
I am angry that there was an attempt to de-personalize prayer so that military chaplains may not pray in Jesus name, and rabbis may not pray to God. Instead, there was an attempt to force them to call upon a generic nameless god, and this is directly against the beliefs of those chaplains, rabbis, and believer’s rights.

...and your comment about the school boards and evolution. I can provide examples if you'd like (being in Kansas, it's as easy as looking through the local paper, but there are also current issues in TX, LA, and FL).

[diana]

You say that you read the thread? Well, another person already pointed out my flippancy, and it was addressed. So, sorry, if I do not repeat myself. Read the thread. Your anger is misplaced.And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d
Actually it's human.Yes, but I seem to get condescension more regularly from Christians than from anyone else. I get it on message boards and--more maddeningly--in person when the attitude and intent is almost impossible to mistake.

Lisa,

I did not claim to be "persecuted." I don't know that I've suffered anything I'd term "persecution" as an atheist. I am a member of a group, however, which is largely marginalized, which is maddening.

I never said any of the stuff you responded to in the OP was your fault. I still wonder why you responded as though all of those posts were aimed at you. I am disappointed, frankly, regarding your attack on me on this thread because I pointed out that you missed the point. Since I wasn't the only one to do so, I'm further confused as to why my response merited such a vicious response. Perhaps it was how I worded it.

But now that you have attacked me (repeatedly), I'll acknowledge that while I know some wonderful Christians, I don't have a stellar opinion of them in general. It's always nice to meet one who makes me respect the belief system, and based on a brief previous discussion between us, I thought you were one such.

I no longer think so.

Enjoy your thread, and I hope your discussion with Jobar is interesting and fruitful.

d

[Lisa0315]

And now you're condescending to me. How...Christian.

Please. Do keep going.

d
Actually it's human.Yes, but I seem to get condescension more regularly from Christians than from anyone else. I get it on message boards and--more maddeningly--in person when the attitude and intent is almost impossible to mistake.

Lisa,

I did not claim to be "persecuted." I don't know that I've suffered anything I'd term "persecution" as an atheist. I am a member of a group, however, which is largely marginalized, which is maddening.

I never said any of the stuff you responded to in the OP was your fault. I still wonder why you responded as though all of those posts were aimed at you. I am disappointed, frankly, regarding your attack on me on this thread because I pointed out that you missed the point. Since I wasn't the only one to do so, I'm further confused as to why my response merited such a vicious response. Perhaps it was how I worded it.

But now that you have attacked me (repeatedly), I'll acknowledge that while I know some wonderful Christians, I don't have a stellar opinion of them in general. It's always nice to meet one who makes me respect the belief system, and based on a brief previous discussion between us, I thought you were one such.

I no longer think so.

Enjoy your thread, and I hope your discussion with Jobar is interesting and fruitful.

d

The point YOU seem to be missing is that you see me as a Christian first, then, a human being. That is what I get from your posts, Diana. You are not telling me that you were wrong about me being a good person, but instead, you are disappointed that I am not the kind of Christian you thought.

Hell, I am not the Christian I thought I was. That is not really a bad thing in my case.

I am a human being responding as a human being does. You seem to have higher expectations for me than if you didn't know anything about my religious beliefs.

I cannot seem to get it across that I am more parts than just my Christianity.

See, from my perspective, you come along knowing nothing of the context of why I accepted this challenge, did not read the entire thread before you made up your mind, and then, when I do not bend over and kiss your ass, you tell me what a bad Christian I am.

Okay. I am a bad Christian. I am also a human being, not perfect, far from it, get angry, forgive, laugh, yell, demanding, giving, serious, joking, asshole one minute, and nurturing the next.

Please forgive me if if I refuse to be anything except exactly who I am. I am not trying to impress you or anyone here. I am not trying to convert people. I know who my friends are already. I am always open to new friends.

Christians do not have a controlling interest on the human ability to group-think, nor are atheists ALWAYS logical and open minded.

Sorry, I have been on the fringes for too long. I see straight through you.

Lisa

[Anne]

I refuse to be lumped into a category that only partly describes me.


That sounds like a great battle cry.

No snark, no cynicism. I really like it.

[diana]

You seem to be fighting a mistaken notion you have assigned to me, Lisa. That's all. I can't seem to talk you out of it, but I imagine that's because you aren't interested.

d

[Lisa0315]

You seem to be fighting a mistaken notion you have assigned to me, Lisa. That's all. I can't seem to talk you out of it, but I imagine that's because you aren't interested.

I hope spewing bile made you feel like the sort of human you want to be, because surely your asshole minute is up by now.

d

If I weren't interested, I wouldn't have attempted the assignment to begin with, Diana. I am assigning to you as I perceive you. You have given me no indication that I am wrong.

Lisa

[Jobar]

As others have pointed out, in this purely textual medium it's often hard for us to get the emotional state of the ones we're interacting with. It's one of the reasons for smilies; though we can't convey the subtle emotional states that f2f conversation allows us, it at least lets us get across our feelings somewhat.

Diana, you might want to read this post (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=15595&#post15595) and the thread it's part of; your reaction here is similar enough to Ronin's that I would ask you the same question I did him (basically, "What is your goal?")

[Worldtraveller]

Even after reading the background links provided by Jobar (thanks!), I'm not sure the point you thought you were making is that clear, Lisa.

I think I know what your point is, because I've interacted with you before and know a bit more about where you're coming from. But even then, it was hard to look past the percieved snark to get at (what I think is) the message.

I think the message you were trying to convey is that while some or all of that atheist rant is true, it doesn't apply to you because you aren't a typical xian. Is that the gist of it? If not, feel free to correct or elaborate.


As for diana's response, I have to say I have more empathy there, not because we both identify as atheists, but because your response came across more as defensive and dismissive than empathetic, even when you did agree that many xians exhibit that behavior.

What if you said all atheists were bad because they assume if you are religious then you must be an idiot, and my response was "Not all atheists think that way, but you kinda sk for it for believing in an invisible being."? I mean, I'm agreeing that it's mean and telling you I don't think that, but there's still the obvious dig in there. That's, unfortunately, how your three or four OPs come across, and I don't think you intended them that way.

Hope that makes sense.

Diana, thanks for editing out that last part of your previous post, although it appears it was a little too slow. :p

[Lisa0315]

Even after reading the background links provided by Jobar (thanks!), I'm not sure the point you thought you were making is that clear, Lisa.

I think I know what your point is, because I've interacted with you before and know a bit more about where you're coming from. But even then, it was hard to look past the percieved snark to get at (what I think is) the message.

I think the message you were trying to convey is that while some or all of that atheist rant is true, it doesn't apply to you because you aren't a typical xian. Is that the gist of it? If not, feel free to correct or elaborate.


As for diana's response, I have to say I have more empathy there, not because we both identify as atheists, but because your response came across more as defensive and dismissive than empathetic, even when you did agree that many xians exhibit that behavior.

What if you said all atheists were bad because they assume if you are religious then you must be an idiot, and my response was "Not all atheists think that way, but you kinda sk for it for believing in an invisible being."? I mean, I'm agreeing that it's mean and telling you I don't think that, but there's still the obvious dig in there. That's, unfortunately, how your three or four OPs come across, and I don't think you intended them that way.

Hope that makes sense.

Diana, thanks for editing out that last part of your previous post, although it appears it was a little too slow. :p

Sort of. I just have been getting the feeling every time I enter into a conversation that SOME atheists are so blinded by my title of Christian that they are reading my posts looking for anything to hold against me.

So, it is not really that I am not a typical Christian, although I am not. It is that I hold the label at all that seems to automatically introduce some hostility into the thread.

Worse, if I call someone out for it, then, I am playing the Christian martyr card. No, I am not. I am simply asking for the same respect that anyone else would want.

If I call someone out, I get, "Oh, fine Christian behavior!" What the fuck does that have to do with anything? If I were Jewish, and I told you off for a perceived slight, no one would be saying, "Oh, that is very JEWISH of you!"

Do you see where I am coming from?

I feel like I am in reverse Christian Forums where I am barely tolerated by some here. That is a bit of an exaggeration, I admit. Atheists were treated like dirty dogs over there. But still, I keep waiting for a post memo that says, "Christians who want to constantly debate their religion will not find their experience very enjoyable."

That is a reference to what the owner at CF did to atheists. He literally ran off folks who had been on CF from its conception, many of which had been Christians, on staff, but later deconverted.

Christians are the best reason for disbelief there is. I am a harsher critic of my brothers and sisters than any atheist could be. I get it. What I find hard to overcome is the preconceptions about me based on my Christian label. Every word I utter is suspect. Every action is scrutinized. "How Christian of you!"

Is that not a True Scotsman right there?

I cannot begin to meet such expectations. I think even Jesus would have a hard time measuring up to what some folks think a Christian should be.

Lisa

[diana]

"What is your goal?")Initially, my goal was to correct what appeared to be a point of ignorance or blindness--the sort of blindness one encounters in those who have never been on the other side of the fence (or in the military), which isn't a willful one.

Then, after having read the entire string of OP responses to the blog entry in question and the entire thread, my goal was to sum up (essentially) why the assignment seems to have been a failure in my own words. I gave the reason, but that's the gist of it.

That's when she came out of her corner hissing, spitting and scratching. I didn't realize I was being nasty--it certainly wasn't my intent--but she clearly perceived my comment at that point as unwelcome, to say the least.

The catfight seems to have started the moment I hit her back (which may sound a bit silly, but then, when the attacked person doesn't swing back, it isn't a fight; it's just a beating). When I realized I'd made a mistake and should have responded by simply walking away, I quit fighting. She didn't, so far as I saw before I placed her on ignore.

(The internet is such a wonderful social medium. I wish I had the "ignore" setting in real life.)

Good luck.

Oh, and...sometimes the emotional state is hard to figure, and sometimes--in this medium--it's unmistakable.

d

[Brianna]

"What is your goal?")Initially, my goal was to correct what appeared to be a point of ignorance or blindness--the sort of blindness one encounters in those who have never been on the other side of the fence (or in the military), which isn't a willful one.

Then, after having read the entire string of OP responses to the blog entry in question and the entire thread, my goal was to sum up (essentially) why the assignment seems to have been a failure in my own words. I gave the reason, but that's the gist of it.

That's when she came out of her corner hissing, spitting and scratching. I didn't realize I was being nasty--it certainly wasn't my intent--but she clearly perceived my comment at that point as unwelcome, to say the least.

The catfight seems to have started the moment I hit her back (which may sound a bit silly, but then, when the attacked person doesn't swing back, it isn't a fight; it's just a beating). When I realized I'd made a mistake and should have responded by simply walking away, I quit fighting. She didn't, so far as I saw before I placed her on ignore.

(The internet is such a wonderful social medium. I wish I had the "ignore" setting in real life.)

Good luck.

d

I think your perception is a little off, but it really isn't any skin off my back.

[diana]

Diana, thanks for editing out that last part of your previous post, although it appears it was a little too slow. :pAh well. Can't win 'em all.

d

[diana]

Quite possibly, Bri, but IMO, many of the original responders to Lisa's responses had a skewed perception, as well (who decides?). But it really isn't any skin off my back, either.

d

[Ronin]

Diana, it started- well, kinda- here. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=15567&#post15567) I offered that blog as suggested reading so that Lisa might better understand why some people *coughRonincough* were responding to her with, shall we say, less than a cool demeanor.

I got several pats on the back for that post, by the way. :)

I've been over this now several times and see nothing uncivil or "uncool" in my approach to Lisa's claims and religious assertions, John.

That said, it looks like Lisa has again expressed her true colors to other atheists here in this thread while I've been busy out and about...which is so very telling (imho).

Her hubris and hypocrisy seem to engender sympathy with some which, at best, is a mere irritation given the overarching issue of how she tries to act like a liberal friend of atheists and freethinkers everywhere, while disguising her fundamental core (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=17351&postcount=19).

For those interested in the tangent regarding the very different treatment atheists and theists get during these discussions, please check out this thread:

Sacred Cows (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=911)

What is your goal?

To call it as I see it, my friend.

The question I have of you Jobar, is what is your goal?

Why is there one participant in this thread (and those linked) who is continuously allowed to cry martyr and stomp around like a five year old when she doesn't get her way while a good critical analysis of her core expressions seem to meet with disdain by you (even though you agree with the criticism on every point).

Is it that you hope to convert Lisa by honey dipping refutations of her socio-political religious views?

...because, in my view, that is a far more cynical approach to adherents of Christianity (even "liberal" ones).

I'm no BadBadBad by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not going to zip the lip whenever she presents something false, flawed or inane inside a shiny heartshaped box.

Case in point:

My values are more in line with atheistic ones than with traditional Christian ones.

This is on record here at SC as being totally and completely incorrect.

Will anyone else call her on it or will they understand how the topic will be skewed into an exhausting discourse in "How To Argue 101" rather than what the original steaming pile was all about?

[Brianna]

Quite possibly, Bri, but IMO, many of the original responders to Lisa's responses had a skewed perception, as well (who decides?). But it really isn't any skin off my back, either.

d

I think hers is a little off too. :dunno:

[Ronin]

Lisa used to be a fundamentalist. She was kind to atheists even then. She's more liberal now and still kind to atheists. It's not her fault that all believers aren't, any more than it's my fault that all atheists aren't kind.

I keep reading this, but it isn't matching up with what I see in Lisa and her posting history. Granted she is recognized as being OCD (this isn't my diagnosis, this is from a post she made at TR) and I understand the difficulties inherent in online text based discussions.

That said, being critical of her assertions and using my previous experiences with our discussions here and at TR seem to be problematic most often for me only...but I am willing to take as much heat as y'all are willing to give me on it because I think it is a better approach.

I haven't been "unkind" to Lisa when I've strongly disagreed with her assertions, at all, in my view.

I've assessed her approach to certain topics and when I find them intentionally veiled, flawed and/or deceptive, I happen to point them out and give reasons why I have come to such conclusions.

She is an adult, I am an adult...and we can certainly examine these topics in the open marketplace of ideas here at SC without all the worriers wringing hands.

[Lisa0315]

This thread is beyond serious. It is seriously too serious. I will be changing the OP if the time limit has not passed.

Oh, well. No creamy breasts or buttsecks for anyone then.

Lisa

[Ronin]

Ah. So I assumed rightly. (I figured it had something to do with Ronin, but didn't realize until page 2 that an admin had assigned the reading.)

d

Hey...wait...whuzzit...what?

:innocent:

[Worldtraveller]

An additional collection of comments about ahteism in the US. I originally got this from IIDB (Jobar posted it, I think).

Prologue
During a recent exchange of flames and frivolty on a local Usenet group (osu.opinion, a newsgroup available only to students of The Ohio State University), somebody made the observation that America was an "anti-Christian" society. As an atheist, I am well-aware of the extent to which religion, especially Christianity, permeates our society. As a result, I found this claim difficult to believe. As I was in a playful mood at the time, I decided to debunk his claim in a somewhat roundabout manner.
The response to the article was fairly good, and one person asked me to repost it to alt.atheism, which I did. Reponse there was even better, and one person even sent me some additional items to add to the list. I then decided to make this a "collaborative rant" by taking suggestions for items to add to the list. Eventually, I had to turn the list over to somebody else, due to the lack of spare time brought about by the birth of my son Jonathan. The list is now being maintained by Jeff Lowder; new items for the list should be sent to jlowder@infidels.org.

I'm certainly glad this has finally been brought out into the open. The anti-Christian bias in our society has reached absurd proportions. Consider:
During the 1988 election campaign, George Bush said that Christians should not be considered patriots or real American citizens.
Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to give any speeches at local churches.
Both major political parties are dominated by anti-Christians. The Republican party, for example, gave us such hard-core atheists as Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Phyllis Schlafly and Ronald Reagan. And the Democrats have given us such personalities as the Rev. Martin Luther King and the Rev. Jesse Jackson-- both noted for their vicious attacks on all forms of Christianity.
Let's talk about the media. On Sunday mornings, nearly all major television channels broadcast pro-atheist shows; it is nearly impossible to find religious programming during that time period. Further, Madalyn Murray O'Hair has her own cable TV channel, while Pat Robertson has been unable to obtain one for himself.
Most major newspapers run a special weekly section devoted to atheism. There are no equivalent sections for religious news.
While atheists couples who marry rarely have any difficulty finding a place to do so, it is nearly impossible for Christian couples to find a church where they can marry.
For that matter, churches themselves are extremely rare, while atheist meeting centers can be found every few blocks.
Recently, several atheists have shot and killed Christian priests as they were going to work in their churches. Similarly, atheists are well known for blockading churches on Sunday mornings.
Nearly all of our elected public officials are atheists; they even have to swear on a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in order to take office.
In a similar vein, jurors must take an oath upon a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer before they can serve. There have even been court cases thrown out because one of the jury members was a Christian who insisted on swearing on a Bible.
And of course, people are free to wear pentagram jewelry, but those trying to wear cross-shaped earrings or pendants to work will be politely told to remove the jewelry or lose their job.
Speaking of the workplace, Christians often find it nearly impossible to get time off work for religious holidays such as Christmas.
Even our language reflects the radical anti-Christian bias that pervades our society. For example, when somebody sneezes, most people say "Darwin bless you". Similarly, "Voltaire dammit!" is a common cussword.
All of our money has the atheistic slogan "We do not trust in God" printed on it. (Contributed by Mike Hurben, <hurben@lamar.ColoState.EDU>.)
In school, our children are made to recite the pledge, "One nation, anti-God, indivisible...." (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
One cannot rent a hotel room without finding a copy of Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ in the room. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
Organizations such as the Boy Scouts deny membership to Christians. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
In the military, it is nearly impossible to obtain Conscientious Objector status for religious reasons, even though those with philosophical reasons can obtain C.O. status relatively easily. (Contributed anonymously.)
Christian churches are forced to pay exorbitant taxes. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie, <rwg@abbyroad.fc.hp.com>.)
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are 19 pages to this list. :D

[Barefoot Bree]

Link! Link!

[Lisa0315]

This is a dead-serious question. No flippancy intended at all, okay?

In the world today, there are governments and religions which are far less tolerant of atheists than Christianity, although, Christianity certainly has its fair share of history of doing evil to non-believers. However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

Why concentrate on things that make the majority of people in American hate atheists (like removing the ten commandments) when there are many people whose very lives are at stake?

Do you understand that most of that huge "Christian" majority out there that "hate" atheists only darken a church door twice a year at Christmas and Easter?

Now, don't get me wrong. I used to argue strongly that separation of church and state meant that state did not interfere with religion, but did not mean that relgion could not influence state. However, after many, many online discussions, I at least see the problem with that.

However, my question is a matter of priorities. Why are atheist resources spent on legal action rather than saving the lives of threatened non-believers across the world?

Lisa

[Garnet]

Oh...my....

I would respond to this but I'm getting ready to go to bed. All I can say is that the assumptions you've made in this post, Lisa are...uh...mind boggling.

[Cliché Guevara]

However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

You've not heard of Amnesty International? Corp Watch? Transparency International?


However, my question is a matter of priorities. Why are atheist resources spent on legal action rather than saving the lives of threatened non-believers across the world?

Lisa

Many are. They also work to save the lives of believers too. You just can't see them.

[Lisa0315]

However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

You've not heard of Amnesty International? Corp Watch? Transparency International?


However, my question is a matter of priorities. Why are atheist resources spent on legal action rather than saving the lives of threatened non-believers across the world?

Lisa

Many are. You just can't see them.

Are those atheist organizations or simply secular?

Lisa

[Cliché Guevara]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa. Secularism appears to be the religionists greatest fear, not atheists per se, but the loss of ecclesiastical power or whatever in society's human infrastructure.

[Lanakila]

Lisa used to be a fundamentalist. She was kind to atheists even then. She's more liberal now and still kind to atheists. It's not her fault that all believers aren't, any more than it's my fault that all atheists aren't kind.

I keep reading this, but it isn't matching up with what I see in Lisa and her posting history. Granted she is recognized as being OCD (this isn't my diagnosis, this is from a post she made at TR) and I understand the difficulties inherent in online text based discussions.

That said, being critical of her assertions and using my previous experiences with our discussions here and at TR seem to be problematic most often for me only...but I am willing to take as much heat as y'all are willing to give me on it because I think it is a better approach.

I haven't been "unkind" to Lisa when I've strongly disagreed with her assertions, at all, in my view.

I've assessed her approach to certain topics and when I find them intentionally veiled, flawed and/or deceptive, I happen to point them out and give reasons why I have come to such conclusions.

She is an adult, I am an adult...and we can certainly examine these topics in the open marketplace of ideas here at SC without all the worriers wringing hands.

I just got here Ronin. I don't know all of her posting history here.

*Remember this when discussing things with Christians-Some will deconvert. I did and many who knew me before would never have thought that about me then. I'm not saying Lisa will. But that possibility exists.

[Lisa0315]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa.

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa

[Lanakila]

This is a dead-serious question. No flippancy intended at all, okay?

In the world today, there are governments and religions which are far less tolerant of atheists than Christianity, although, Christianity certainly has its fair share of history of doing evil to non-believers. However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

Why concentrate on things that make the majority of people in American hate atheists (like removing the ten commandments) when there are many people whose very lives are at stake?

Do you understand that most of that huge "Christian" majority out there that "hate" atheists only darken a church door twice a year at Christmas and Easter?

Now, don't get me wrong. I used to argue strongly that separation of church and state meant that state did not interfere with religion, but did not mean that relgion could not influence state. However, after many, many online discussions, I at least see the problem with that.

However, my question is a matter of priorities. Why are atheist resources spent on legal action rather than saving the lives of threatened non-believers across the world?

Lisa

Most atheists don't really care about the moving of the ten commandments one way or another Lisa. Most of us are like you, very busy just living. The things we care about are state sponsorship of religion and fairness. I don't like that Christians are offended that a cross is removed from public property because that cross doesn't represent all Americans. Even as a believer I thought that fighting to keep religious icons and traditions in the public square was stupid. It diminishes the significance when it's forced on people that don't believe.

[Cliché Guevara]

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa

I agree with you in part, but from an international viewpoint, Christian America has been easily as fucking frightening as fundamentalist Islam in recent years. As for the word "persecution", it's so overused. I must call "cliche" on that one. :D

Anyway, only jumped in for a minute - I gotta run. Things to see, people to do! :cool:

[frazier]

Are those atheist organizations or simply secular?

Lisa
What's the difference? They are not Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Pastafarian organizations. They are a-theistic.

[Lisa0315]

This is a dead-serious question. No flippancy intended at all, okay?

In the world today, there are governments and religions which are far less tolerant of atheists than Christianity, although, Christianity certainly has its fair share of history of doing evil to non-believers. However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

Why concentrate on things that make the majority of people in American hate atheists (like removing the ten commandments) when there are many people whose very lives are at stake?

Do you understand that most of that huge "Christian" majority out there that "hate" atheists only darken a church door twice a year at Christmas and Easter?

Now, don't get me wrong. I used to argue strongly that separation of church and state meant that state did not interfere with religion, but did not mean that relgion could not influence state. However, after many, many online discussions, I at least see the problem with that.

However, my question is a matter of priorities. Why are atheist resources spent on legal action rather than saving the lives of threatened non-believers across the world?

Lisa

Most atheists don't really care about the moving of the ten commandments one way or another Lisa. Most of us are like you, very busy just living. The things we care about are state sponsorship of religion and fairness. I don't like that Christians are offended that a cross is removed from public property because that cross doesn't represent all Americans. Even as a believer I thought that fighting to keep religious icons and traditions in the public square was stupid. It diminishes the significance when it's forced on people that don't believe.

Okay, honestly, I do not know what is important to the majority of atheists. However, I would think that as a group, treatment of atheists in countries that persecute non-believers would be a huge big deal.

Is it that atheists are not a cohesive group so much as it is an individual life choice? There is simply no organization of atheists? That must be it right?

Lisa

[Lanakila]

Okay, honestly, I do not know what is important to the majority of atheists. However, I would think that as a group, treatment of atheists in countries that persecute non-believers would be a huge big deal.

Is it that atheists are not a cohesive group so much as it is an individual life choice? There is simply no organization of atheists? That must be it right?

Lisa
By god I think you are getting it. There is no atheist church. The only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in God.

[JamesBannon]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa.

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa
Because Christianity is the dominant religion of our culture, that's why Lisa.

[Jobar]

The question I have of you Jobar, is what is your goal?

A fair and relevant question. It's best answered on several levels.

As one of the admins, I want to encourage entertaining and informative threads in this forum. That means that we need posters with multiple points of view. We have very few Christians willing to post here; even back in the days when I modded the Existence of God(s) forum at II, that was an ongoing problem. Too many lions; too few Christians. If you think that herding cats is a bitch of a job, just try to get lions to *share* the Christians they do get! So at the 'admin' level, I'm trying to get the unbelievers to keep from piling on the believers so heavily that they flee the forum, in terror, exhaustion, and anger.

On one level I'm another of the lions. But I hope that I'm one of the rare lions that can control their appetite, and lie down with the sheep and make them understand the advantages of being a lion instead of a sheep. I want to keep them around long enough, and in a frame of mind receptive and unafraid, so that they can understand my (our) arguments.

On yet another, I'm a human being, mortal and just as subject to the proverbial slings and arrows as the Christians are. I don't often expect to find believers who have lessons to teach me, but experience has shown that *some* believers can have ideas that are new to me. (And I sometimes learn from even the most ignorant and close-minded ones; "the wise old fox may learn more from the young fool, than the young fool can learn from the wise old fox.")
--------------------------------

However, as of right now, why aren't there atheist organizations going about trying to get human rights and so forth for non-believers in Muslim or Communist countries.

Lisa, you aren't paying attention. There ARE such organizations, some explicitly non-theistic. You should ask DMB about the work her husband is doing right now with the UN Human Rights Commission.

And down through history, the number of doubters and skeptics and deists and plain ol' atheists that have made major contributions to the advancement of humanity, is out of all proportion to the small percentage of the population that unbelievers have always amounted to.

Think about it. Do you realize how many of the American Founding Fathers were skeptics and doubters? How many famous philosophers, from Socrates on to the present day, have been criticized- some actually persecuted and even killed- for casting doubt on the reality of god(s)? How many famous scientists have been unbelievers?

On a percentage basis, Lisa, I put it to you that atheists have done more real good for humanity that theists.

[Zygote]

I just have been getting the feeling every time I enter into a conversation that SOME atheists are so blinded by my title of Christian that they are reading my posts looking for anything to hold against me.

So, it is not really that I am not a typical Christian, although I am not. It is that I hold the label at all that seems to automatically introduce some hostility into the thread.

Worse, if I call someone out for it, then, I am playing the Christian martyr card. No, I am not. I am simply asking for the same respect that anyone else would want.

<snip>

Christians are the best reason for disbelief there is. I am a harsher critic of my brothers and sisters than any atheist could be. I get it. What I find hard to overcome is the preconceptions about me based on my Christian label. Every word I utter is suspect. Every action is scrutinized. "How Christian of you!"

Is that not a True Scotsman right there?

I cannot begin to meet such expectations. I think even Jesus would have a hard time measuring up to what some folks think a Christian should be.

Lisa

Lisa, I hear your frustration in feeling judged by what other people judge or assume a "Christian" to be. I also hear your frustration at being lumped together with other "Christians" with whom you feel you do not have much in common.

This brings up a couple of points that may be relevant here.

One is the issue of bias against Christians in general. I have to own some of this. Simply put, by identifying as a Christian, as a person willing to accept or rely on supernatural answers to real world questions, you have removed yourself from that group of people who place the highest value on reason, logic and objective reality in dealing with the real world.

While I admire and enjoy your wisdom, compassion and sense of humor and playfulness, part of the respect that I would grant a less gullible person is withheld. Part of me will always wonder just how ready you might be to resort to "God did it," instead of objective analysis.

You don't seem to want to be expected to behave as a "Christian" and that's a fair request. Who, after all, can define what a Christian is? There are as many different Christianities as there are believers.

One never knows what sort of "Christian" one is dealing with. You may have a clear idea of your belief system, or you may not. Those outside you have even less of an idea.

So why identify yourself as a Christian at all? How does it help you interact with the outside world? How does it help you live your life better to have others define you as Christian?

What does it meant to you to be a Christian?

How would you like to have those beliefs and your predisposition towards belief addressed in this forum?

[Cliché Guevara]

Are Atheists the new Jews? http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/11/22/persecution-today-atheists-are-the-new-jews/

Interesting take. I don't think we are here in NZ; but are they in America?

[Ray Moscow]

When I was growing up in the US Bible belt, atheists were considered scum.

As far as I can tell, they still are.

[Ronin]

Are Atheists the new Jews? http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/11/22/persecution-today-atheists-are-the-new-jews/

Interesting take. I don't think we are here in NZ; but are they in America?

Yes. (http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted)

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

When I was growing up in the US Bible belt, atheists were considered scum.

As far as I can tell, they still are.

Yes, but we're gaining ground by becoming ever more proactive and vocal in the social and political arenas.

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

[Garnet]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa.

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa

Once more, I'm very short on time, but I've got to respond to this.

Lisa, I was harassed on the job for over a year and then subsequently fired because it got out that I am an atheist. I had to get an order of protection against a street preacher who followed me around, screaming at me and then the bastard showed up at my apartment buidling. I once got smacked in the face by a "Jesus Saves" sign for the mere act of going into a women's clinic. Do you remember what happened at my mother's funeral?


So please, just because my life wasn't in danger doesn't mean that my experiences should be marginalized. I have had a boatload of trouble with Christians both in my personal and professional life.

[Ronin]

So at the 'admin' level, I'm trying to get the unbelievers to keep from piling on the believers so heavily that they flee the forum, in terror, exhaustion, and anger.

Well, we must just disagree on what is going on between Lisa and I during these discussions.

In my view, no one is getting "piled on".

The religious argument is offered, along with a sound refutation.

Now, it is a common tendency for religious adherents to "personalize" their claims so deeply and emotionally that it is virtually impossible to reject their claims in stark terms without "getting too personal".

This isn't a laboratory, we're bound to get mud on our boots and traipse into the family room.

My review of the assorted discussions we've had doesn't rise to the level of even the old Rants forum, much less warranting a finger shaking "now now, be nice" so that others with weakly supported religious assertions can be lured in.

If the ideas can be defended, then let's dance.

[Lisa0315]

Ronin, Sorry, but that ship is sinking.

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes. I am not the only one who sees this. If I were the only one...maybe, it would be my perception...however, that is not the case. Are you really saying that everyone is wrong and you are the only one who is right?

You got personal and it had nothing to do with the topic. You accused me of evasiveness and purposeful dishonesty. It simply wasn't true.

However, I will tell you this. If someone does do these things, the correct way to handle it is not ad homs, but to continue asking pointed questions until the person has no place left to run.

Do you think I am inexperienced in these talks? Do you think that I do not understand the rules of civil discourse? I am beginning to think that it is you who do not understand the rules.

Perhaps at places like TR or whatever forum TR was derived from, ad homs are the norm, but in real classical debate, it is not allowed. This is not a formal debate, per se, but the same rules of civility and respect should apply.

I can be reduced to ad homs myself. I am trying to get across to you that there is indeed a difference between me and my beliefs. The latter, feel free, to attack. The former, not so much, not unless you want to get it right back.

I mean, look, one of your accusations was that I was debating on how to debate rather than addressing the posts...Well...that is what happens if one of the people are not following the rules. Unless there are clear boundaries, nothing will ever get said, answered, or resolved.

It is extremely frustrating.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I just have been getting the feeling every time I enter into a conversation that SOME atheists are so blinded by my title of Christian that they are reading my posts looking for anything to hold against me.

So, it is not really that I am not a typical Christian, although I am not. It is that I hold the label at all that seems to automatically introduce some hostility into the thread.

Worse, if I call someone out for it, then, I am playing the Christian martyr card. No, I am not. I am simply asking for the same respect that anyone else would want.

<snip>

Christians are the best reason for disbelief there is. I am a harsher critic of my brothers and sisters than any atheist could be. I get it. What I find hard to overcome is the preconceptions about me based on my Christian label. Every word I utter is suspect. Every action is scrutinized. "How Christian of you!"

Is that not a True Scotsman right there?

I cannot begin to meet such expectations. I think even Jesus would have a hard time measuring up to what some folks think a Christian should be.

Lisa

Lisa, I hear your frustration in feeling judged by what other people judge or assume a "Christian" to be. I also hear your frustration at being lumped together with other "Christians" with whom you feel you do not have much in common.

This brings up a couple of points that may be relevant here.

One is the issue of bias against Christians in general. I have to own some of this. Simply put, by identifying as a Christian, as a person willing to accept or rely on supernatural answers to real world questions, you have removed yourself from that group of people who place the highest value on reason, logic and objective reality in dealing with the real world.

While I admire and enjoy your wisdom, compassion and sense of humor and playfulness, part of the respect that I would grant a less gullible person is withheld. Part of me will always wonder just how ready you might be to resort to "God did it," instead of objective analysis.

You don't seem to want to be expected to behave as a "Christian" and that's a fair request. Who, after all, can define what a Christian is? There are as many different Christianities as there are believers.

One never knows what sort of "Christian" one is dealing with. You may have a clear idea of your belief system, or you may not. Those outside you have even less of an idea.

So why identify yourself as a Christian at all? How does it help you interact with the outside world? How does it help you live your life better to have others define you as Christian?

What does it meant to you to be a Christian?

How would you like to have those beliefs and your predisposition towards belief addressed in this forum?

I wrote a reply to this but lost it when SC went down briefly.

I call myself a Christian because that is being true to my beliefs. If I were to call myself a theist or something else, or nothing at all, it would be only to please other people. Christian means to follow Christ. There are many who call themselves by the label but do not follow Christ at all.

Not that I am above anyone or anything like that. I happen to think of myself as a pretty awful Christian, a failure at it, but then, that is by the measurement of other Christians. I am trying very hard to block out the religious indoctrination and listen only to the voice of Christ. (No I do not hear him audibly)

I suppose that the experiences most atheists have had with Christians leave them (like Diane) categorizing Christians into "good ones" and "bad ones", where most fall into the "bad ones" until proven otherwise.

I have no idea if I am a "good one" or a "bad one", and perhaps, I am both depending on the situation and the moment. If I were to define a "good one", I would define a good Christian as someone who speaks forth the truth of their belief in a calm and peaceful way, does not judge others, has not forgotten how to have fun, quick to apologize and quicker to forgive. I would add that being a Christian isn't about whether you curse or not, or whether you have a dirty mind or not. Purity in a Christian may be the ideal, but few achieve it, and most are pretty dishonest about it.

The "good ones" are open and listen, but they are still human, and it may be that they argue today against something, but they spend time thinking about what people have said, and maybe they come back a few days later, or a few years later, and say, "You know, I have changed my mind about that."

The "good ones" try to teach other Christians what they have learned and often are given a kick in the gut for it.

I don't know. I am sure there is a lot more that can be added to the "good" and "bad" list. I know that the one thing that drove me away from fundamentalism was the lack of love, and the gleeful hatred towards deh gheys, and the ebil atheists.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa.

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa

Once more, I'm very short on time, but I've got to respond to this.

Lisa, I was harassed on the job for over a year and then subsequently fired because it got out that I am an atheist. I had to get an order of protection against a street preacher who followed me around, screaming at me and then the bastard showed up at my apartment buidling. I once got smacked in the face by a "Jesus Saves" sign for the mere act of going into a women's clinic. Do you remember what happened at my mother's funeral?


So please, just because my life wasn't in danger doesn't mean that my experiences should be marginalized. I have had a boatload of trouble with Christians both in my personal and professional life.

No, not marginalized, Garnet, never. I am sorry if I did that to you.

Lisa

[Worldtraveller]

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes.
I put forth that this is working both ways. You can not tell the difference between you and the topic, either.

[Lisa0315]

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes.
I put forth that this is working both ways. You can not tell the difference between you and the topic, either.

I am not sure that is true, WT, but if you can show me a post where I did this, it will help me not to do it again.

Lisa

[Ronin]

However, I would think that as a group, treatment of atheists in countries that persecute non-believers would be a huge big deal.

What in the world makes you think that it isn't?

To be clear, there are secular groups, human rights groups, the American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Center For Inquiry, among others that have developed networks promoting activism and protest whenever such persecution takes place.

This is a very large huge big deal.

Also, I see something that you might be missing...bigotry isn't just a matter of treating atheists as inferior (professionally and in social/family circles)...but it is also treating another group as superior.

You know a bit of my history as an atheist and what I do on and off duty in service to the community. I also have two sons ages 14 and 8. Both of my sons have been actively recruited by the Boy Scouts of America at their public school during school hours over the years.

One year I thought I would go ahead and dedicate what extra time I had to volunteer at our local BSA troop (just down the road on Camp Wilkes) and submitted a request. I was given a copy of the requirements, which included a declaration of religious principles me and my sons must accept to be members.

In order to be honest and truthful about our world view, my written request was that we have permission to waive the religious portion of the oath.

The request was in no uncertain terms denied given the assertion that without a belief in a deity one cannot be a good, moral citizen. Granted, the BSA is a private organization and can discriminate at will. This doesn't make it any more right or moral to do so.

The other boys in the neighborhood who are scouts are directly being taught lies about me and my family.

Bigotry can be expressed by not only telling atheists that they aren't moral enough for politics, but it can also be reflected by manipulating the flock into not voting for a candidate because she consorts with "the godless" (deviant, by default) as well as by telling religious believers that they are needed to control their local, state and national offices and their legislature because the government has need of their superior "moral values".

We've seen the train wreck during the last election cycle caused by this tactic. Fortunately, it became so stark and offensive that most folks were grossed out by it. My opinion is that it still exists in many of our citizens, though they are not as willing to put it out in front anymore.

Part of what you and I keep having conflict over is your overall assertion that you are more a friend of the cause of human liberty and "atheistic" viewpoints while you don't seem to reflect a real understanding of where we are and what we go through.

Lisa, your consistent dismissiveness is what is problematic for me in these threads, though I am coming to understand that it may not be intentional or malicious.

Maybe that is our only common ground.

[Ronin]

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes.
I put forth that this is working both ways. You can not tell the difference between you and the topic, either.

This is exactly right.

Lisa, you want to be able to slip back and forth from a "topic" to your personal convictions on a "topic"...and then cry foul when they both are jointly rejected.

I am not able to address "your views on the topic" without addressing "you".

This ship isn't sinking, by the way, so no matter how hard you blow it is hurricane proof.

:cool:

[Jobar]

So at the 'admin' level, I'm trying to get the unbelievers to keep from piling on the believers so heavily that they flee the forum, in terror, exhaustion, and anger.

Well, we must just disagree on what is going on between Lisa and I during these discussions.

In my view, no one is getting "piled on".

The religious argument is offered, along with a sound refutation.

Now, it is a common tendency for religious adherents to "personalize" their claims so deeply and emotionally that it is virtually impossible to reject their claims in stark terms without "getting too personal".

This isn't a laboratory, we're bound to get mud on our boots and traipse into the family room.

My review of the assorted discussions we've had doesn't rise to the level of even the old Rants forum, much less warranting a finger shaking "now now, be nice" so that others with weakly supported religious assertions can be lured in.

If the ideas can be defended, then let's dance.

If it were just you, or just me, or just diana, or just WT, or Ray, or even just two or three of the ones engaging in this thread, I'd agree that Lisa wasn't being piled on. Even the most direct arguments offered in this thread aren't really ad hominems, I don't think.

But there are enough of us here that just reading and acknowledging our posts can be a full time job; having served as a mod, I know full well how much time and thought that can take. And responding to all those posts is much harder.

Lisa, I give you the same advice I've given plenty of other believers. Don't let the sheer number of responses exhaust you. If you want, specify the ones you want to fully interact with, and while you should politely acknowledge others who contribute, you are one and we are many; you can't keep up with all of us, and shouldn't be expected to.

And now I must bid you all adieu for the nonce; work calls, with a hoarse and demanding voice...

[Zygote]

Ronin, Sorry, but that ship is sinking.

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes.

I'm not sure anyone can make that distinction at this point.


So why identify yourself as a Christian at all? How does it help you interact with the outside world? How does it help you live your life better to have others define you as Christian?

What does it meant to you to be a Christian?

How would you like to have those beliefs and your predisposition towards belief addressed in this forum?

I wrote a reply to this but lost it when SC went down briefly.

I call myself a Christian because that is being true to my beliefs. If I were to call myself a theist or something else, or nothing at all, it would be only to please other people. Christian means to follow Christ. There are many who call themselves by the label but do not follow Christ at all.

Now I am totally confused.

You call yourself a Christian because you are a Christian. But others who call themselves Christians are not Christians, according, apparently, to your definition of what it means to "follow Christ."

Being Christian seems to be defined by each person differently. Many of us are not steeped in the traditions of "right way" and "wrong way" or "good Christian" vs. "bad Christian."

How on earth are we supposed to separate your Christianity from your self since your Christianity is defined solely by you?




Disclaimer: I am well aware that this is a bit of a straw man, since all religions are mental constructs of those who follow them.

There is no objective reality that any religion has unique access to; there are only shared sets of stories within each sect. Each believer makes choices about the extent to which they rely exclusively on the teachings of a single sect.

How each person experiences their religion is inseparable from who they are. One cannot challenge one person's religion without challenging that person personally.

[Lisa0315]

Ronin, Sorry, but that ship is sinking.

I had to stop over and over to get you back on the subject. You simply cannot tell the difference between the topic and me sometimes.

I'm not sure anyone can make that distinction at this point.


So why identify yourself as a Christian at all? How does it help you interact with the outside world? How does it help you live your life better to have others define you as Christian?

What does it meant to you to be a Christian?

How would you like to have those beliefs and your predisposition towards belief addressed in this forum?

I wrote a reply to this but lost it when SC went down briefly.

I call myself a Christian because that is being true to my beliefs. If I were to call myself a theist or something else, or nothing at all, it would be only to please other people. Christian means to follow Christ. There are many who call themselves by the label but do not follow Christ at all.

Now I am totally confused.

You call yourself a Christian because you are a Christian. But others who call themselves Christians are not Christians, according, apparently, to your definition of what it means to "follow Christ."

Being Christian seems to be defined by each person differently. Many of us are not steeped in the traditions of "right way" and "wrong way" or "good Christian" vs. "bad Christian."

How on earth are we supposed to separate your Christianity from your self since your Christianity is defined solely by you?




Disclaimer: I am well aware that this is a bit of a straw man, since all religions are mental constructs of those who follow them.

There is no objective reality that any religion has unique access to; there are only shared sets of stories within each sect. Each believer makes choices about the extent to which they rely exclusively on the teachings of a single sect.

How each person experiences their religion is inseparable from who they are. One cannot challenge one person's religion without challenging that person personally.

I don't agree. I have seen the best of the best do it. One has to step away from all emotion to do it, but yeah, it can be done.

Let me show you.

Lisa states: I believe that God put everything in motion, and the mechanism by which God did it is evolution. I believe that the Genesis story is a parable.

Wrong Response: How can you believe that. It is just stupid.

Right Response: How can you believe that? There is no evidence to indicate that a higher being, much less the Christian God had anything to do with it.

Ronin has said in disagreement with me, "You are doing X and you are an X for doing it." Diane has said, "How Christian of you!" in a derogatory fashion. (Whether or not I started it, I don't know. Maybe I did)

It would have been better to say, "Lisa, I believe you are wrong because of X, Y, and Z."

How about, "Your responses seem flippant to me." I responded and agreed, and explained why I was a bit flippant in my replies. Ten pages later, Diane tells me she has read the entire thread, but then goes on about my attitude or whatever. Had she truly read the thread she would have found the conversation about my flippancy.

So, there can be some critique of my behavior, or my attitude, or my tone, and that is not really an ad hom if it is an attempt to understand where I am coming from rather than an accusation.

However, calling me names in response to one of my posts is not the right way to go about it.

I know what I am saying is not an alien concept. I do not understand why this has to be so hard.

Lisa

[Jobar]

Well said.

[DMB]

Lisa, with respect to your comment about helping the victims of persecution elsewhere, some of us do try to do that. It's not a case of either/or.

I am a non-American, so I am not involved with things like trying to stop the display of the Ten Commandments on public land, and so forth. But there are a number of reasons for Americans to do so, as I understand it.


It is perfectly natural for people of any beliefs to have a primary concern about what happens in their own country. And in fact most people know very little about other countries, in part because their media don't report it.
I think you've already been presented in this thread with ways in which atheists are vicitmised by the predominantly Christian culture in your country.
Your country has an admirable secular constitution that mandates separation of church and state.
To atheists, who are already a despised and abused minority, the disrespect of the constitution by putting Christian symbols on public land sends an arrogant message to atheists that "we Christians are in the majority and you don't count".

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, with respect to your comment about helping the victims of persecution elsewhere, some of us do try to do that. It's not a case of either/or.

I am a non-American, so I am not involved with things like trying to stop the display of the Ten Commandments on public land, and so forth. But there are a number of reasons for Americans to do so, as I understand it.


It is perfectly natural for people of any beliefs to have a primary concern about what happens in their own country. And in fact most people know very little about other countries, in part because their media don't report it.
I think you've already been presented in this thread with ways in which atheists are vicitmised by the predominantly Christian culture in your country.
Your country has an admirable secular constitution that mandates separation of church and state.
To atheists, who are already a despised and abused minority, the disrespect of the constitution by putting Christian symbols on public land sends an arrogant message to atheists that "we Christians are in the majority and you don't count".


My brain says that it is just and right to remove the 10Cs based solely on the Constitution. My heart says otherwise. Can you understand the conflict?

This country was designed to eliminate the religious wars and corruption that Europe had seen. It was based on many contemporary philosophies of the day. Yes, several of the founding fathers were non-believers. However, at the same time, there is an historical context that cannot be overlooked either.

While our government is secular, the heritage of Americans IS predominantly Christian. That is part of the American heritage whether people today are believers or not. Our government paid for missionaries to go to the Indians. Our government paid to bring Bibles from Scotland during the Revolutionary war. The Thanksgiving holiday began as a national day of prayer as directed by Congress and the President.

Society changes, and while I truly believe that the people of 1781 thought they were getting a Christian government, just not one of a particular flavor, not Protestant, not Roman Catholic, nor any other variety. There are a great many evidences that this is true.

So, by today's interpretation of a Constitution that is intended to be adaptable to the people it serves, yeah, the 10C's should come down. Yet, please keep in mind that when the crosses and religious icons come down, you are not just making things "just", you are in some ways, revising history and the intent of the people represented in the Second Constitutional Congress.

Lisa

[Ronin]

Well said.

I disagree, Jobar.

I have presented the "right responses" in great detail presenting post after post about how immoral the Christian deity (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=12778&postcount=34) is...sometimes I even posted scripture and specifically annotated how the entire religion (even as a parable or a metaphor) is utterly nonsensical.

Honestly, who does this sound like most to you:

How can you believe that? There is no evidence to indicate that a higher being, much less the Christian God had anything to do with it.

That is my trademark argument and, according to Lisa, the "right response".

Surely you can see that even if she were to locate one example of an ad hom against her (and she hasn't) that would still be, by far and away, the exception while ignoring the rule of my posting style and specific treatment of her in an assortment of threads.

Now, granted when Lisa has been deceptive and evasive I have called her on it...but not without presenting evidence showing that she was behaving so.

Here is a prime example:

Assisted Suicide (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=17230&#post17230)

Exception to my not replying to Ronin:

Hell yes, I would use my right to vote against abortion and assisted suicide, just like anyone else would use their right to vote their conscience.

Yet, as you say, when the rubber hit the road, I voted for a candidate that had a 100% approval rating from the pro-choice groups. So, I am not a one-issue voter. I voted for the idea that while Obama certainly is in complete opposition to my belief on those things, it is not a false platform like the Republicans have. There is a much greater chance that abortions will be reduced through education, alternatives, and birth control than the pretense of the Republicans.

Republicans held the Presidency, put several Justices in place, and held the majority in both houses for most of the last thirty years, and they didn't do a damn thing about abortion.

Yeah, I am still registered as a Republican, but only because I am too lazy to change it to Independent.

Lisa

vs.

Values (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=19974&postcount=70)

Yes, and I acknowledge the right of those service members to file complaints. Second, I voted against the religious right this year. So, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with me. My values are more in line with atheistic ones than with traditional Christian ones.

So, going back to the whole Ronin/Diana thing, I refuse to be lumped into a category that only partly describes me.

Lisa

See how this is deceptive and evasive?

Lisa wants to refuse to be "lumped into a category", while still hoping to buddy up to atheists by "lumping" herself into a liberal Christian category that, in my view, she really doesn't even come close to representing.

Again, I'm not offering an ad hom...I am stating the freaking obvious.

And if that is against the rules, the she should stop posting everything from her subjective "personal convictions" and just "argue the topics"...instead of trying to have it both ways while I, curiously enough, cannot address both as well without submitting to a pity party over it.

Jobar, if I've posted a personal insult, been uncivil, flamed, threatened or blatantly and incessantly derailed threads with offending ad homs against Lisa0315 then please moderate me, send me a PM warning or ban me from the SC altogether.

If you don't find that her accusations meet with sufficient evidence for such action then I suggest that we just stop this distracting and rather redundant ruse over the apparently mushy sensibilities of religious adherents we hope to beguile here and the flawed notion that I'm the sole source of whatever the problem happens to be.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, with respect to your comment about helping the victims of persecution elsewhere, some of us do try to do that. It's not a case of either/or.

I am a non-American, so I am not involved with things like trying to stop the display of the Ten Commandments on public land, and so forth. But there are a number of reasons for Americans to do so, as I understand it.


It is perfectly natural for people of any beliefs to have a primary concern about what happens in their own country. And in fact most people know very little about other countries, in part because their media don't report it.
I think you've already been presented in this thread with ways in which atheists are vicitmised by the predominantly Christian culture in your country.
Your country has an admirable secular constitution that mandates separation of church and state.
To atheists, who are already a despised and abused minority, the disrespect of the constitution by putting Christian symbols on public land sends an arrogant message to atheists that "we Christians are in the majority and you don't count".


Went off on a tangent...sorry.

These are very valid points, and #4 is probably the best presented reason I have seen yet.

I honestly did not mean my question about persecution in other countries to be rude or obnoxious. It was a serious thought because I had never heard of "atheist" groups uniting to do anything like that.

What literally went through my mind was that removing crosses was pretty minor to the other kinds of hatred in the world towards atheists, so why was that the thing to concentrate on? See?

In fact, it was just that I didn't know that there were some organized groups out there. I suppose atheists are not as newsworthy as Fred Phelps protesting funerals and calling down the wrath of God on gay people.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Well said.

I disagree, Jobar.

I have presented the "right responses" in great detail presenting post after post about how immoral the Christian deity (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=12778&postcount=34) is...sometimes I even posted scripture and specifically annotated how the entire religion (even as a parable or a metaphor) is utterly nonsensical.

Honestly, who does this sound like most to you:

How can you believe that? There is no evidence to indicate that a higher being, much less the Christian God had anything to do with it.

That is my trademark argument and, according to Lisa, the "right response".

Surely you can see that even if she were to locate one example of an ad hom against her (and she hasn't) that would still be, by far and away, the exception while ignoring the rule of my posting style and specific treatment of her in an assortment of threads.

Now, granted when Lisa has been deceptive and evasive I have called her on it...but not without presenting evidence showing that she was behaving so.

Here is a prime example:

Assisted Suicide (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=17230&#post17230)

Exception to my not replying to Ronin:

Hell yes, I would use my right to vote against abortion and assisted suicide, just like anyone else would use their right to vote their conscience.

Yet, as you say, when the rubber hit the road, I voted for a candidate that had a 100% approval rating from the pro-choice groups. So, I am not a one-issue voter. I voted for the idea that while Obama certainly is in complete opposition to my belief on those things, it is not a false platform like the Republicans have. There is a much greater chance that abortions will be reduced through education, alternatives, and birth control than the pretense of the Republicans.

Republicans held the Presidency, put several Justices in place, and held the majority in both houses for most of the last thirty years, and they didn't do a damn thing about abortion.

Yeah, I am still registered as a Republican, but only because I am too lazy to change it to Independent.

Lisa

vs.

Values (http://secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=19974&postcount=70)

Yes, and I acknowledge the right of those service members to file complaints. Second, I voted against the religious right this year. So, I do not see how any of this has anything to do with me. My values are more in line with atheistic ones than with traditional Christian ones.

So, going back to the whole Ronin/Diana thing, I refuse to be lumped into a category that only partly describes me.

Lisa

See how this is deceptive and evasive?

Lisa wants to refuse to be "lumped into a category", while still hoping to buddy up to atheists by "lumping" herself into a liberal Christian category that, in my view, she really doesn't even come close to representing.

Again, I'm not offering an ad hom...I am stating the freaking obvious.

And if that is against the rules, the she should stop posting everything from her subjective "personal convictions" and just "argue the topics"...instead of trying to have it both ways while I, curiously enough, cannot address both as well without submitting to a pity party over it.

Jobar, if I've posted a personal insult, been uncivil, flamed, threatened or blatantly and incessantly derailed threads with offending ad homs against Lisa0315 then please moderate me, send me a PM warning or ban me from the SC altogether.

If you don't find that her accusations meet with sufficient evidence for such action then I suggest that we just stop this distracting and rather redundant ruse over the apparently mushy sensibilities of religious adherents we hope to beguile here and the flawed notion that I'm the sole source of whatever the problem is here.

First of all, they do not do that here so not getting a PM, warning, or a ban, is not proof that they approve of you, or that you have not attacked me with ad homs.

Second, that bolded example of mine is not "yours". It is the response I have heard from every atheist who every argued with a Theistic Evolutionist.

Third, since when is abortion and assisted suicide atheist values???? If you had asked me without attacking me, I would have told you, I was talking about the protection of Separation of Church and State, keeping prayer out of schools, and so forth.

Again, put those two posts together without a bad attitude and you get this:

Against Abortion + Against Assisted Suicide (which I later retracted) + Protection of Separation of Church and State + No Prayer in Schools + Voted for ProChoice Candidate = Christian Whose Values Line Up With Many Atheists

In other words, I voted against issues that are dear to me personally and against my religious convictions in favor of someone who would protect the broader American values represented in the Constitution.

Your interpretation of those two posts are wrong, Ronin. Were you not so ready to attack, you might have asked for clarification, and I would have given it to you.

Instead, you have accused me falsely, then tried to convince others.

Lisa

[Ronin]

In other words, I voted against issues that are dear to me personally and against my religious convictions in favor of someone who would protect the broader American values represented in the Constitution.

Are you actually reading before you post, Lisa?

The rest of your rant is rather redundant.

You don't like me, we get it, thanks.

Here, let me speak in the Christian tongue..."Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There, ta-dah...I'm a traditional atheist in line with Christian values now.

:cool:

[Lisa0315]

In other words, I voted against issues that are dear to me personally and against my religious convictions in favor of someone who would protect the broader American values represented in the Constitution.

Are you actually reading before you post, Lisa?

The rest of your rant is rather redundant.

You don't like me, we get it, thanks.

Here, let me speak in the Christian tongue..."Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There, ta-dah...I'm a traditional atheist in line with Christian values now.

:cool:


Are you freaking kidding me, Ronin? This is not about me liking you. Apart from your snarkiness, I respect you as a human being. I read about what you do. This has nothing to do with like or dislike. There are very few people who make it to my dislike list. Of all the people I know or have met on the internet, there are three that I actively dislike and that was not because of what they did to me, but what they did to other people. Guess what? None of them were lulz kids.

Do you think you are the first hostile atheist I have encountered? Nope, not even close. You will certainly not be the last, and by the way, you are far from the most original. Hell, compared to some I know, you are not even what I would consider militant or angry. You are just a bit snarky. I happen to like snarky.

I enjoyed our battle of endearments and pics.

For you to boil this all down to me disliking you shows an extreme lack of confidence in yourself. You are quite likeable actually.

It is irritating and it is frustrating that you continue to think of me in such a negative way, but I cannot control what you think of me, nor am I going to worry about it too much.

That said, there are only so many ways a thing can be said. Either you believe me, or you think I am full of shit. Whatever. I know who I am and I know what I believe. I make the best decisions that I can and I am constantly seeking new information to test and broaden myself.

I do not think I will ever be an atheist, Ronin. I have no desire to be one. There was a time in my life when I wished there was no God but was afraid it was all true. That is not the kind of belief I ever want to have again.

I am not as well-read, intelligent, or worldly as you or some others. I am going to make mistakes. I am going to make bad assumptions based on my limited knowledge of things. Yet, I admit that I don't know everything. I admit when I am wrong if I truly believe that I am wrong.

On Christian Forums, I thought I had been "sent" there to teach and preach. I have been humbled by what I don't know, and even more so, by what I have been taught. I learned very little from my brothers and sisters, more often, what not to do. However, I met atheists such as Beastt, FasterJackrabbit, TheBear, Garnet and many, many others who argued with me, debated with me, laughed with me, and yelled at me when I needed it.

We would get mad, frustrated, and everything in between, but when we left the serious discussions, we were friends. Do you think they spared my feelings when the serious discussion started back up for the sake of being nice or for friendship? Nope.

The thing is...and no, it is not ironic at all...atheists have always treated me with more respect than my brothers and sisters. Why do you think I hang out with atheists rather than Christians?

Ronin, I do not have a problem with you. I just think that our internet experiences have been vastly different. I come from a place in which every word is measured for its attack value and warnings, suspensions, and bans are given out whether the post was reported or not. I come from a place where spite reporting happens to the point that it is literally a joke to mods. Perhaps, then, I am more sensitive to a perceived attack than I should be. (I am giving you an out and a truce here Ronin) Perhaps my ad hom detector is more finely tuned than yours. I don't know. Part of my job as a mod was to determine if a post was a violation or not, and the most common violation was an attack on the person instead of an attack on the post.

I feel like I am something of an expert on what is and what is not an ad hom. Yet, then, again, maybe what is defined on one board is different on this one. I thought it was common sense and easy to see the difference.

But, then, I look at things that some of the lulz kids said to people and compared to that...I mean, if THAT is the measure of what is an "attack", then, yeah, the problem is mine, not yours.

Someone clue me in.

Lisa

[Ronin]

Let me post this one more time for clarity:

Against Abortion + Against Assisted Suicide (which I later retracted) + Protection of Separation of Church and State + No Prayer in Schools + Voted for ProChoice Candidate = Christian Whose Values Line Up With Many Atheists.

In other words, I voted against issues that are dear to me personally and against my religious convictions in favor of someone who would protect the broader American values represented in the Constitution.

Now, you are stating unambiguously that you hold the issues of abortion, assisted suicide, protection of separation of church and state, no prayer in schools and for a pro-choice candidate very dear...and that you voted "against these issues that are dear to you and against your religious convictions" this past election cycle because broader American values were at stake.

This indicates that your actual current religious convictions are still equivalent to any Christian fundamentalist, but that you voted against them this time because the GOP had a try and failed to deliver on them.

Is this a mis-characterization of your statement/position?

If so, explain how it is explained any other way.

Also, did you actually ever "retract" your position on quality of life issues and assisted suicide or did you merely move as far as "I don't know"?

PS Hint: Calling me "hostile" is either an ad hom or an extremely flawed use of language. I'll give you that one, though, because you've never experienced a control sample.

:D

[Lisa0315]

Let me post this one more time for clarity:

Against Abortion + Against Assisted Suicide (which I later retracted) + Protection of Separation of Church and State + No Prayer in Schools + Voted for ProChoice Candidate = Christian Whose Values Line Up With Many Atheists.

In other words, I voted against issues that are dear to me personally and against my religious convictions in favor of someone who would protect the broader American values represented in the Constitution.

Now, you are stating unambiguously that you hold the issues of abortion, assisted suicide, protection of separation of church and state, no prayer in schools and for a pro-choice candidate very dear...and that you voted "against these issues that are dear to you and against your religious convictions" this past election cycle because broader American values were at stake.

This indicates that your actual current religious convictions are still equivalent to any Christian fundamentalist, but that you voted against them this time because the GOP had a try and failed to deliver on them.

Is this a mis-characterization of your statement/position?

If so, explain how it is explained any other way.

Also, did you actually ever "retract" your position on quality of life issues and assisted suicide or did you merely move as far as "I don't know"?

PS Hint: Calling me "hostile" is either an ad hom or an extremely flawed use of language. I'll give you that one, though, because you've never experienced a control sample.

:D

No, Ronin, you misunderstand. I am only AGAINST abortion. I voted against that ONE value. All other values, Obama meets quite well.

I am pro-life, yes. I did make the mistake and I admitted to it of blurring all life issues with abortion. I am also pro-constitution, against prayer in schools, and I am pro-separation of church and state. I voted for a candidate that would uphold the constitution even though part of that means that abortions will continue. I find abortions morally wrong, and I did before I was a Christian. However, one cannot vote on one issue alone, so LIKE MOST ATHEISTS, I voted for the candidate who met most of my values and MOST of those values are more in line with atheism than with fundamental Christianity.

Many Christians want prayer back in schools, but they want their particular brand of Christian prayer in schools and do not even consider that a teacher may lead a class in Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Satanic prayer.

Many Christians want a Christian nation and a Christian government and if there are individuals who are adversely affected by that, they do not care. Many Christians think that our government is about what the majority wants even if it is at the detriment to a minority. Many Christians do not want gay marriage, or civil unions, whatever. Many Christians would completely remove the teaching of evolution in schools and replace it with YEC. Many Christians remove their children from public education and either send them to private Christian school or homeschool them. Many Christians will not read, or listen to the overwhelming evidence of evolution, nor consider the magnificence of a God who did not magically wish the universe into being, but spent an infinity planning it, and setting it into motion of controlled chaos.

Damn it, if you would just listen to me and stop nitpicking at me, you might find that I am not your enemy.

As for calling you hostile, yes, that was an ad hom. I should have said, "Your posts feel hostile to me." :D

Lisa

[Ronin]

I'm not "nitpicking" you, Lisa. I am responding to you.

You stated that you held those issues dear and that you voted against your religious convictions.

That was a rather explicit announcement that it was more than just about abortion. Apparently, we still have work to do.

;)

Thanks for the final specifics of your socio-political views and I'm glad I took the time to inquire around all of the hedging...like when I asked you directly about your views regarding quality of life issues and assisted suicide. You started to do the Curly shuffle a bit on us, but (thanks to my devilish beguilement) leveled out and went with the safer "I don't know" position.

Hey, every time I state what your posts feel like to me, I get a firm round of the circle jerk from you, so it is good to know that it is now an accepted form of communication.

Let me know when you're over it so I can get on with discussing how the Christian God (including himself as his own son by a virgin female human) is implausible and specifically depicted as immoral and that the human sacrifice of an innocent is not a true reflection of unconditional love even if the victim is an immortal being beyond space and time.

:)

Now just look at all those smilies I've shelled out...you know you're special now.

:cool:

[Anne]

you know, just my 2 ¢ but this is getting unpleasant.

[JamesBannon]

I wish people would stop using the term "atheist values", since there's no such thing. Atheists have only one thing in common: lack of belief in deities. They span the entire socio-political and philosophical spectra. Of course, one might argue the same about religionists of whatever stripe. It seems to me, therefore, that we should be careful about labeling!

[epepke]

Not that anybody listens to me, but...

Lisa did some homework and answered the questions. Although I have no personal knowledge, it seems to me that she did so honestly. I remember Lisa from some other fora (I think), and it seems to me that she's behaved honorably. I think it's rather uncool to pick on her for her answers.

[Worldtraveller]

While our government is secular, the heritage of Americans IS predominantly Christian. That is part of the American heritage whether people today are believers or not. Our government paid for missionaries to go to the Indians. Our government paid to bring Bibles from Scotland during the Revolutionary war. The Thanksgiving holiday began as a national day of prayer as directed by Congress and the President.
There are several factual claims being made here. I have addressed them in this thread. (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=21604)

[Lisa0315]

While our government is secular, the heritage of Americans IS predominantly Christian. That is part of the American heritage whether people today are believers or not. Our government paid for missionaries to go to the Indians. Our government paid to bring Bibles from Scotland during the Revolutionary war. The Thanksgiving holiday began as a national day of prayer as directed by Congress and the President.
There are several factual claims being made here. I have addressed them in this thread. (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=21604)

Thanks for that thread. My source is the Library of Congress.

Lisa

[4321lynx]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

[Ronin]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

Actually, I am fundamentally a bullshit detector, it's a gift...apparently there are rules against calling it here, though.

There is no dogma to atheism to abide by as a fundamentalist.

Good thing you have it all figured out. I feel safer knowing you are here to save the day.

:notworthy:

[David B]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

[Lisa0315]

An idiot's eloquence is silence.

Japanese Proverb

[Ronin]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

I can explain.

I am having a conversation with Lisa. I disagree with her on certain minor points and she gets to tit (her fave!), while I don't get so much as a tat without vast generalizations and accusations about how I am mistreating the residence Christian because we don't want to scare them off.

Most of my problem with Lisa doesn't have the first thing to do with "atheism" or "theism"...it has to do with presentation and methodology in a discussion format.

Along came a spider and now we're back to square one.

In conclusion, Lisa and I don't like each other at all...viscerally.

There is no common ground to be found now or in the near future.

It will be a vast waste of time to continue this dance, in my view, so I have put her on ignore and hope that the rest of whomever is still reading this can move along.

If you don't feel like doing so, no worries, I will be having the time of my life doing far more productive things...like having a Guinness and loving the night sky.

[4321lynx]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

That's what I meant. I think most Fundies are militant if you prod them even ever so gently, and I find many US atheists here & on iidb are just as militant in their attitude, hence my label. They are intolerant of any expressions of religion, seem threatened by them, and imply that atheism would do away with most of the problems of this world, which they say, are caused by religion.

Nothing to do with any atheist dogma, Ronin & David. I just liked the label. Still like it.

[Worldtraveller]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

That's what I meant. I think most Fundies are militant if you prod them even ever so gently, and I find many US atheists here & on iidb are just as militant in their attitude, hence my label. They are intolerant of any expressions of religion, seem threatened by them, and imply that atheism would do away with most of the problems of this world, which they say, are caused by religion.

Nothing to do with any atheist dogma, Ronin & David. I just liked the label. Still like it.
1) You'd be wrong, especially about Ronin, and just about every other atheist here. I can think of exactly two on IIDB that might fit the militant description...and at least one of them was banned there.

2) You still stick with a label that makes no coherent sense? That says more about you than those you attach that label to. FYI.

[4321lynx]

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

That's what I meant. I think most Fundies are militant if you prod them even ever so gently, and I find many US atheists here & on iidb are just as militant in their attitude, hence my label. They are intolerant of any expressions of religion, seem threatened by them, and imply that atheism would do away with most of the problems of this world, which they say, are caused by religion.

Nothing to do with any atheist dogma, Ronin & David. I just liked the label. Still like it.
1) You'd be wrong, especially about Ronin, and just about every other atheist here. I can think of exactly two on IIDB that might fit the militant description...and at least one of them was banned there.

2) You still stick with a label that makes no coherent sense? That says more about you than those you attach that label to. FYI.

It all depends on what you mean by "militant" & by "coherent sense". WARNING I am not prepared to waste time arguing these points. I still like the label. I will not be bound by any dogmatic definition of expressions that are purely expressions of opinion.:cool:

[Worldtraveller]

Thanks for sharing, then, Humpty.

[4321lynx]

Discussion of "millitant" & "coherent sense" does not belong in this thread.

By a Fundie Atheist I mean someone who would for example refuse to be married in a church even if that were desired by his only mildly, really merely nominally Lutheran fiancee, would not tolerate any celebration of, say, Xmas , such as a Xmas tree for the kids, or grandkids, exchange of gifts, Xmas cards etc, or egghunts at Easter, christenings, church attendance at any time etc etc etc.
Things that matter so little or not at all, and are completely harmless traditions, most of them pagan in origin, amusing for children, just like the belief in Santa Claus, or to atheistically "blaspheme" & give him his proper pre Reformation title, St Nicholas the Patron Saint of children.:evil: (btw the reindeer & night before Xmas stuff is all shit. His day for giving gifts to kids in person, or into their hung-up stockings is December 6th. Sorry to disillusion you.:dunno::))


I now understand the reasons for the hostility to self-appointed didactic Xtians & their preaching & enforcing & discriminating ways in the States much better since joining iidb some years ago. I still regret the fundamentalist atheist reaction to it. And having directly experienced the benefits of one atheist system, marxist communism, I have no faith whatever in atheism as the saviour of the world from its present & future problems.

For all the past & present & future sins of religions, human society's need of some kind of religion is self-evident: no civilisation/culture in history has ever appeared without some kind of fanciful man-created god(s) and their religious, irrational worship acting as a cement to society.
The devil, as usual, is in the details.

End of sermon.

Pax vobiscum. Ite missa est...

See, you're dealing with the devil himself ... an ex Roman Candle.(that's an exPapist, don't you know) :eek:

[Brianna]

Seems Lisa is an Unfundie Christian & Ronin is a Fundie Atheist. So the argument gets heated at times. Are there no Christians at all around here to help Lisa out? Plenty of AgnoAtheists of all stripes I see.

Militant atheist. there is a difference. :)

Not that I think anyone here really is one and Not that this hasn't been covered :cheeky:

[DMB]

When it comes to discussions about religion there are always going to be passions aroused, but I must ask all participants to avoid attacking one another in personal terms. Attack the arguments, please, not the people making them.

[Brianna]

When it comes to discussions about religion there are always going to be passions aroused, but I must ask all participants to avoid attacking one another in personal terms. Attack the arguments, please, not the people making them.

DMB really has lovely Admin notes. I like them.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying anyone here was militant. It is was not what I was trying to say.

[Lisa0315]

They are nice. Very pretty to an OCD mind.

Lisa

[Jobar]

I wonder, lynx, if by 'Fundie' you actually meant 'militant'.

It's the only way I can make sense of your choice of words, since I don't see any coherent meaning to the expression 'Fundie Atheist'.

If I'm missing something, then perhaps you could enlighten me.

David

That's what I meant. I think most Fundies are militant if you prod them even ever so gently, and I find many US atheists here & on iidb are just as militant in their attitude, hence my label. They are intolerant of any expressions of religion, seem threatened by them, and imply that atheism would do away with most of the problems of this world, which they say, are caused by religion.

Nothing to do with any atheist dogma, Ronin & David. I just liked the label. Still like it.
1) You'd be wrong, especially about Ronin, and just about every other atheist here. I can think of exactly two on IIDB that might fit the militant description...and at least one of them was banned there.

2) You still stick with a label that makes no coherent sense? That says more about you than those you attach that label to. FYI.

Let me guess... BadBadBad and Biff the Unclean.

Does anyone else remember Starboy? IIRC he was the very first atheist ever banned at II for his constant aggressive attacks on theists.

As to being a "fundamentalist atheist"- Can an atheist be a fundamentalist? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta) Good article.

The subject here is angry atheists, though. Certainly I've known atheists that IMO were excessively angry; they let their anger guide them rather than using it to motivate them.

[JamesBannon]

Mostly, I remember Biff being angry at the way his relatives were treated by Scottish Calvinists in Ireland. I must admit that I despise Calvinism with a passion! It has to be the most poisonous of all the Christian doctrines (and that's saying something).

[Barefoot Bree]

I had the pleasure of meeting Starboy in person, just after he was banned. He was funny, articulate, and very smart. It was a shame he couldn't seem to tone it down enough to stay on the good side.

[4321lynx]

As to being a "fundamentalist atheist"- Can an atheist be a fundamentalist? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta) Good article.



Good philosophical soliloquy. And I imagined I had just invented the term!!

But his theoretical Fundie atheist is not the same as mine. As you might see from the incomplete description Igave of what I mean, it really adds up to an atheist who is INTOLERANT of the signs/symptoms of theism in others. As intolerant as the Xtians are of atheists.

Show me any culture which was not assisted by theism. Even the 3/4 century of communism found it needed personality cults and other traits of theism, to keep going, including "the faithful" spying on one another and denouncing one another to "the authorities".

It's all just nasty humans with their same old, same old...:evil:

[DMB]

Show me any culture which was not assisted by theism. Even the 3/4 century of communism found it needed personality cults and other traits of theism, to keep going, including "the faithful" spying on one another and denouncing one another to "the authorities".

It's all just nasty humans with their same old, same old...:evil:

I find your use of "assisted" a little odd. Would you say that Nazism was "assisted" by centuries of Christian anti-semitism?

[Puck]

Wait, so I can change the meaning of a word, and everyone else is supposed to follow?

[4321lynx]

Show me any culture which was not assisted by theism. Even the 3/4 century of communism found it needed personality cults and other traits of theism, to keep going, including "the faithful" spying on one another and denouncing one another to "the authorities".

It's all just nasty humans with their same old, same old...:evil:

I find your use of "assisted" a little odd. Would you say that Nazism was "assisted" by centuries of Christian anti-semitism?

It wasn't hampered by it. The Germans had their own particular antisemitism for centuries, a little more violent than other central Europeans.
Nazism was mainly helped by French & British humiliation of Germany at Versailles, & their dictated peace, & the perception of the communist danger after their own, German, revolution led by Jewish Rosa Luxembourg & her Jewish boyfriend, and the presence in the near background of atheistic Russian communism, also largely led by Jews. Nazism was a narcissistic cult of only 25 years duration as a Party & only 12 years duration in power. A "would-be civilisation" only. And it was atheistic, though using religion where & when it could to help it along.

But I'm getting a little off topic here.

By "assisted" I mean to stress again that there never has been a civilisation where religion did not play a leading part, as a cementing and enforcing and sustaining force, psychologically & physically, throughout its creation & duration, no matter how perverted and revolting the various religions, past & present, look to us.

[dancer_rnb]

Oh FSM, not the old "Nazism was atheistic" canard again.

[4321lynx]

Oh FSM, not the old "Nazism was atheistic" canard again.

What do you know about it? Were you there? Just read about it? Saw it all on the Internet?
You think the Nazis held church parades? Took Lutheran/Catholic/Calvinist communion at Easter?

[Lisa0315]

Actually, Lynx, I imagine that many Nazis went to church and praised Jesus for their victory over their enemies, much like Klansmen in Southern USA who preached by day and rode by night.

The awful reality is that none of the allies went to war over the Jews, and each side was sure that God was on their side. If the Germans had targeted Jews within Germany and had not invaded other countries, no one would have batted an eye except for other Jews.

Israel, was nothing, but a collective sigh of European guilt, and hope that they wouldn't all settle in THEIR nation.

The Catholic Church, based in Axis Italy, did nothing. A few brave priests and nuns, few and far between, aided the Jews, helped hide and protect them, and none of it was done at the insistence of Rome.

It is a question that I have asked Catholics. All of Mussolini's army were probably devout Catholics. One word from the Pope, and Mussolini would have been overthrown. I will never understand that to my dying day.

There may have been plenty of atheists on both sides, but I don't think anyone can say that the Nazis were atheists and the allies were all Christians.

Lisa

[4321lynx]

Actually, Lynx, I imagine that many Nazis went to church and praised Jesus for their victory over their enemies, much like Klansmen in Southern USA who preached by day and rode by night.

The awful reality is that none of the allies went to war over the Jews, and each side was sure that God was on their side. If the Germans had targeted Jews within Germany and had not invaded other countries, no one would have batted an eye except for other Jews.

Israel, was nothing, but a collective sigh of European guilt, and hope that they wouldn't all settle in THEIR nation.

The Catholic Church, based in Axis Italy, did nothing. A few brave priests and nuns, few and far between, aided the Jews, helped hide and protect them, and none of it was done at the insistence of Rome.

It is a question that I have asked Catholics. All of Mussolini's army were probably devout Catholics. One word from the Pope, and Mussolini would have been overthrown. I will never understand that to my dying day.

There may have been plenty of atheists on both sides, but I don't think anyone can say that the Nazis were atheists and the allies were all Christians.

Lisa

I know a great many people IMAGINE what you imagine in your first sentence. Many Germans, most of them, did that.Some were Nazi party members for whatever reason, most did not want to think or perhaps even approved of what the Nazis were doing.

Hitler's war was for LEBESRAUM, living space in Europe, for the Germans at the cost of Germany's neighbours. The destruction of the Jews, the FINAL SOLUTION, was merely an aside in that plan.

Pope Pius XII was a German & Nazi sympathiser, there is no doubt.

Certainly, the people who broke the back of German plans were no Christians -- it was the Soviet Red Army, & the Russian people.

I may add that I hold no brief for the Nazis, the Germans, the Commies, or the Russians, having lost many family members in that war and its aftermath to all those categories.

[Lisa0315]

Actually, Lynx, I imagine that many Nazis went to church and praised Jesus for their victory over their enemies, much like Klansmen in Southern USA who preached by day and rode by night.

The awful reality is that none of the allies went to war over the Jews, and each side was sure that God was on their side. If the Germans had targeted Jews within Germany and had not invaded other countries, no one would have batted an eye except for other Jews.

Israel, was nothing, but a collective sigh of European guilt, and hope that they wouldn't all settle in THEIR nation.

The Catholic Church, based in Axis Italy, did nothing. A few brave priests and nuns, few and far between, aided the Jews, helped hide and protect them, and none of it was done at the insistence of Rome.

It is a question that I have asked Catholics. All of Mussolini's army were probably devout Catholics. One word from the Pope, and Mussolini would have been overthrown. I will never understand that to my dying day.

There may have been plenty of atheists on both sides, but I don't think anyone can say that the Nazis were atheists and the allies were all Christians.

Lisa

I know a great many people IMAGINE what you imagine in your first sentence. Many Germans, most of them, did that.Some were Nazi party members for whatever reason, most did not want to think or perhaps even approved of what the Nazis were doing.

Hitler's war was for LEBESRAUM, living space in Europe, for the Germans at the cost of Germany's neighbours. The destruction of the Jews, the FINAL SOLUTION, was merely an aside in that plan.

Pope Pius XII was a German & Nazi sympathiser, there is no doubt.

Certainly, the people who broke the back of German plans were no Christians -- it was the Soviet Red Army, & the Russian people.

I may add that I hold no brief for the Nazis, the Germans, the Commies, or the Russians, having lost many family members in that war and its aftermath to all those categories.

I am deeply sorry for your loss. :hug: The scars of that war are enduring.

Lisa

[darjeeling]

Certainly, the people who broke the back of German plans were no Christians -- it was the Soviet Red Army, & the Russian people.

They were still Christians.

[4321lynx]

Certainly, the people who broke the back of German plans were no Christians -- it was the Soviet Red Army, & the Russian people.

They were still Christians.

Only some of them. The older people who grew up before the revolution and were still alive. Mainly those in the (personally) conservative countryside.

Let's not derail this thread any further, eh?:)

[darjeeling]

Certainly, the people who broke the back of German plans were no Christians -- it was the Soviet Red Army, & the Russian people.

They were still Christians.

Only some of them. The older people who grew up before the revolution and were still alive. Mainly those in the (personally) conservative countryside.

Let's not derail this thread any further, eh?:)

Just because you were required to identify as an atheist to be a party member doesn't mean people were actually atheists. And just because people didn't openly practice their religion doesn't mean they no longer believed it or followed traditions.

[Lisa0315]

They were still Christians.

Only some of them. The older people who grew up before the revolution and were still alive. Mainly those in the (personally) conservative countryside.

Let's not derail this thread any further, eh?:)

Just because you were required to identify as an atheist to be a party member doesn't mean people were actually atheists. And just because people didn't openly practice their religion doesn't mean they no longer believed it or followed traditions.

hmm...I don't think you know Russian Orthodox very well. To claim to be an atheist when one is not is akin to denying Christ. The Russian Orthodox church went through a great deal of persecution under the Communist rule. They were killed, sent to work camps, and people were encouraged to harrass them free from prosecution.

Those who renounced their faith to be part of the Communist party were not believers to begin with.

Lisa

[darjeeling]

hmm...I don't think you know Russian Orthodox very well.

I know some Russian Orthodox people very well, including a member of the clergy who always answered questions I had.

To claim to be an atheist when one is not is akin to denying Christ.

So what? Read what you wrote next:
The Russian Orthodox church went through a great deal of persecution under the Communist rule. They were killed, sent to work camps, and people were encouraged to harrass them free from prosecution.

There were plenty of people who simply kept their beliefs to themselves for exactly those reasons. That doesn't mean they were no longer Christians.

Did everyone become a true believer of communism because it wasn't politically permissible to publicly admit to being anything else?

What about after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Did former pioneers and party members who started going to services again and practicing Russian Orthodoxy suddenly re-convert and turn into Christians?

Those who renounced their faith to be part of the Communist party were not believers to begin with.

How do you know that?

In order to get ahead in life, you had to be a member of the party. That doesn't mean that all members of the party were truly atheists who completely renounced all religious beliefs.

Besides, it's inaccurate to call Soviet 'atheism' atheism. They just took Christ and replaced him with the State, borrowing the language, symbols, images, and rituals of Russian Orthodoxy and putting communists' faces in place of saints' faces and Christ's.

[Lisa0315]

hmm...I don't think you know Russian Orthodox very well.

I know some Russian Orthodox people very well, including a member of the clergy who always answered questions I had.

To claim to be an atheist when one is not is akin to denying Christ.

So what? Read what you wrote next:
The Russian Orthodox church went through a great deal of persecution under the Communist rule. They were killed, sent to work camps, and people were encouraged to harrass them free from prosecution.

There were plenty of people who simply kept their beliefs to themselves for exactly those reasons. That doesn't mean they were no longer Christians.

Did everyone become a true believer of communism because it wasn't politically permissible to publicly admit to being anything else?

What about after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Did former pioneers and party members who started going to services again and practicing Russian Orthodoxy suddenly re-convert and turn into Christians?

Those who renounced their faith to be part of the Communist party were not believers to begin with.

How do you know that?

In order to get ahead in life, you had to be a member of the party. That doesn't mean that all members of the party were truly atheists who completely renounced all religious beliefs.

Besides, it's inaccurate to call Soviet 'atheism' atheism. They just took Christ and replaced him with the State, borrowing the language, symbols, images, and rituals of Russian Orthodoxy and putting communists' faces in place of saints' faces and Christ's.

http://countrystudies.us/russia/38.htm

[4321lynx]

Besides, it's inaccurate to call Soviet 'atheism' atheism. They just took Christ and replaced him with the State, borrowing the language, symbols, images, and rituals of Russian Orthodoxy and putting communists' faces in place of saints' faces and Christ's.

Now you're talking sense. The rest was just surmise. Partly true only.
Now we're back to pre-revolutionary status quo -- you can be Orthodox & not Russian, but you can't be Russian if you're not Orthodox :). The no true Russian fallacy.

[darjeeling]

Why are you quoting the official history of the church and ignoring what I wrote?

I'm talking about people's actual personal beliefs. Not what the government did to the church. Not what people had listed on their documents. Their actual beliefs and practices.

[Lisa0315]

Why are you quoting the official history of the church and ignoring what I wrote?

I'm talking about people's actual personal beliefs. Not what the government did to the church. Not what people had listed on their documents. Their actual beliefs and practices.

I am not, I don't think. :dunno: If so, I apologize. I am trying to be more sensitive about doing that. It is not intentional. I think it is more an inability to put in words what I am thinking.

My point is personal beliefs would not allow one to pretend to be an atheist. A Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian simply cannot do that and be a true believer. It is one of the "rules" but it is beyond that. It is the reason why many Christians will say that there are no deconversions. (Don't throw stuff at me, y'all, I am just explaining something here, not reflecting what I personally think) One can backslide. One can leave the church. One cannot deny the name of Christ without some serious consequences.

Peter did it and was forgiven. He repented immediately though. The lesson we have of Peter is the foundation of what I am trying to get across to you. To recant, to deny the name of Christ, is supposed to be impossible for any extended length of time for a "true" believer. One cannot claim to be a believer privately and claim to be an atheist publicly, not without a powerful conviction and grief.

If Christians went around doing this, there would have been no Roman persecution. See?

Christians go into hiding. Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

Lisa

[darjeeling]

I am not, I don't think. :dunno: If so, I apologize. I am trying to be more sensitive about doing that. It is not intentional. I think it is more an inability to put in words what I am thinking.

I just don't see how your link was a response to what I said. That's all. But you've just explained what you meant with the rest of your post.

My point is personal beliefs would not allow one to pretend to be an atheist. A Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian simply cannot do that and be a true believer. It is one of the "rules" but it is beyond that. It is the reason why many Christians will say that there are no deconversions. (Don't throw stuff at me, y'all, I am just explaining something here, not reflecting what I personally think) One can backslide. One can leave the church. One cannot deny the name of Christ without some serious consequences.

Peter did it and was forgiven. He repented immediately though. The lesson we have of Peter is the foundation of what I am trying to get across to you. To recant, to deny the name of Christ, is supposed to be impossible for any extended length of time for a "true" believer. One cannot claim to be a believer privately and claim to be an atheist publicly, not without a powerful conviction and grief.

If Christians went around doing this, there would have been no Roman persecution. See?

Christians go into hiding. Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

I get your point.

But it does and did happen. I've met and talked to people who were pioneers and then komsomol'tsy and then party members who were Christians. It's what they had to do, and they were still believers. Were they lying to me? Or is it that they were believers but not True Believers? Does the distinction even matter? They self-identified as Christians and believed.

[4321lynx]

hmm...I don't think you know Russian Orthodox very well.

I know some Russian Orthodox people very well, including a member of the clergy who always answered questions I had.

To claim to be an atheist when one is not is akin to denying Christ.

So what? Read what you wrote next:
The Russian Orthodox church went through a great deal of persecution under the Communist rule. They were killed, sent to work camps, and people were encouraged to harrass them free from prosecution.

There were plenty of people who simply kept their beliefs to themselves for exactly those reasons. That doesn't mean they were no longer Christians.

Did everyone become a true believer of communism because it wasn't politically permissible to publicly admit to being anything else?

What about after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Did former pioneers and party members who started going to services again and practicing Russian Orthodoxy suddenly re-convert and turn into Christians?

Those who renounced their faith to be part of the Communist party were not believers to begin with.

How do you know that?

In order to get ahead in life, you had to be a member of the party. That doesn't mean that all members of the party were truly atheists who completely renounced all religious beliefs.

Besides, it's inaccurate to call Soviet 'atheism' atheism. They just took Christ and replaced him with the State, borrowing the language, symbols, images, and rituals of Russian Orthodoxy and putting communists' faces in place of saints' faces and Christ's.

Why are you quoting the official history of the church and ignoring what I wrote?

I'm talking about people's actual personal beliefs. Not what the government did to the church. Not what people had listed on their documents. Their actual beliefs and practices.

I am not, I don't think. :dunno: If so, I apologize. I am trying to be more sensitive about doing that. It is not intentional. I think it is more an inability to put in words what I am thinking.

My point is personal beliefs would not allow one to pretend to be an atheist. A Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian simply cannot do that and be a true believer. It is one of the "rules" but it is beyond that. It is the reason why many Christians will say that there are no deconversions. (Don't throw stuff at me, y'all, I am just explaining something here, not reflecting what I personally think) One can backslide. One can leave the church. One cannot deny the name of Christ without some serious consequences.

Peter did it and was forgiven. He repented immediately though. The lesson we have of Peter is the foundation of what I am trying to get across to you. To recant, to deny the name of Christ, is supposed to be impossible for any extended length of time for a "true" believer. One cannot claim to be a believer privately and claim to be an atheist publicly, not without a powerful conviction and grief.

If Christians went around doing this, there would have been no Roman persecution. See?

Christians go into hiding. Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

Lisa

Lisa

I assume you have never lived under a communist dictatorship & seen what it does to people. Many accepted martyrdom, if not in the romanticised way you've descrbed it. However millions got rid of their faith entirely or pretended to be atheists rather than face the Gulag or other prisons.
One of the main pillars of communism was the system of mutual denunciation of everyone by everyone, far more effective than any "investigation" by the toughs of the secret police.

[TheBear]

Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

Lisa
Even though there are those who aspire to martyrdom as the highest sacred virtue, (modern day suicide bombers come to mind), I don't think that's true for most, regardless of their religion. Also, the Bible refers to an Apostle who denied knowing Christ - not once, but three times.

[Lisa0315]

Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

Lisa
Even though there are those who aspire to martyrdom as the highest sacred virtue, (modern day suicide bombers come to mind), I don't think that's true for most, regardless of their religion. Also, the Bible refers to an Apostle who denied knowing Christ - not once, but three times.

...and repented immediately. It was not a lifestyle choice, nor was it driven by money or political reasons. Also, it was prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. :)

[TheBear]

Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

Lisa
Even though there are those who aspire to martyrdom as the highest sacred virtue, (modern day suicide bombers come to mind), I don't think that's true for most, regardless of their religion. Also, the Bible refers to an Apostle who denied knowing Christ - not once, but three times.

...and repented immediately. It was not a lifestyle choice, nor was it driven by money or political reasons. Also, it was prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. :)
Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

[Jobar]

Drat! The Bear beat me to it. :)

(Peter's denial, I mean.)

[TheBear]

Drat! The Bear beat me to it. :)

(Peter's denial, I mean.)
Actually, Lisa beat us both. ;)

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=23257&#post23257

[lex]

Any one here ever known a christian pretend to be an atheist on a discussion board?

[TheBear]

If I were in a situation where I would have to pretend to be a Muslim to avoid having my throat slit, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be shouting Allah Akbar!

[Lisa0315]

Even though there are those who aspire to martyrdom as the highest sacred virtue, (modern day suicide bombers come to mind), I don't think that's true for most, regardless of their religion. Also, the Bible refers to an Apostle who denied knowing Christ - not once, but three times.

...and repented immediately. It was not a lifestyle choice, nor was it driven by money or political reasons. Also, it was prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. :)
Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

The very, very Early Church had to teach against this very thing. People wanted to die for Christ so badly, they were turning themselves in. I cannot remember what Church document I read but if I remember correctly, it was an admonition by a second-generation Church Father, just one step away from the Apostles themselves.

Lisa

[TheBear]

What about you, Lisa? Where is your head at with this? If a life or death situation came up for you, would you conceal your religious beliefs, or would you willingly be a martyr for your beliefs, singing praises to the end?

[Criada]

Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

I am sure that many Christians have and would conceal their beliefs in these circumstances, because we are imperfect humans, and the thought of pain, if not death, is very frightening to most of us.
I don't think any of us can know what we would do in those circumstances. But there have been many who have died for dearly held convictions, even where those convictions do not hold the promise of an afterlife, so it seems unsurprising that those who look forward to heaven would do so.

[Tenebrae]

What difference does it make? "Atheism" as an identifying activist catch cry is more of an American thing. You talk about the whole world, but you see the world through American eyes, Lisa.

Yes, I do, I agree. However, I am just trying to understand the priorities and why it "appears" to be directed more towards Christianity than other religions. At this point in history, Christian America may not be very accepting of atheists, but they are not being persecuted either. Atheists in other parts of the world, their very lives are in danger by either dictatorial regimes or religions other than Christianity.

Lisa

Once more, I'm very short on time, but I've got to respond to this.

Lisa, I was harassed on the job for over a year and then subsequently fired because it got out that I am an atheist. I had to get an order of protection against a street preacher who followed me around, screaming at me and then the bastard showed up at my apartment buidling. I once got smacked in the face by a "Jesus Saves" sign for the mere act of going into a women's clinic. Do you remember what happened at my mother's funeral?


So please, just because my life wasn't in danger doesn't mean that my experiences should be marginalized. I have had a boatload of trouble with Christians both in my personal and professional life.


Yup, I was verbally abused in a church

Cyber stalked, the balless wonders didnt start doing it in real life where there would be actual consequences, however all of a sudden the bastards started showing up where ever I was on the web.


Garnet, I'm so sorry that you had to experience that sort of shit

[Zygote]

Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

And what if such martyrdom left your dependents without support and subject to harassment, persecution or worse? Isn't there a moral obligation to support, honor and care for a spouse or small children or aging, dependent parents?

Any doctrine that preaches the necessity of abandoning a family in favor of becoming a religious martyr is nothing short of criminal mental abuse.

[Lisa0315]

What about you, Lisa? Where is your head at with this? If a life or death situation came up for you, would you conceal your religious beliefs, or would you willingly be a martyr for your beliefs, singing praises to the end?

Sitting here in my cozy office, I can readily say that I would be a martyr, no probs. As a human being, though, my instinct would be to preserve my life.

However, what I have faith in, what I believe would happen, and what I believe has happened to every Christian martyr is that the Holy Spirit enables the person to remain faithful unto death. It is a promise in Scripture and not made lightly.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

And what if such martyrdom left your dependents without support and subject to harassment, persecution or worse? Isn't there a moral obligation to support, honor and care for a spouse or small children or aging, dependent parents?

Any doctrine that preaches the necessity of abandoning a family in favor of becoming a religious martyr is nothing short of criminal mental abuse.

It is a question that I have posed to other Christians as well. It is pretty easy to allow yourself to be martyred. It is something else altogether different to watch family and friends suffer and die by association. Yet, plenty have done it.

Lisa

[4321lynx]

Its a sick idealism to think that no Christian would conceal their religious beliefs in order to save their life. Its a sick idealism to think that all Christians would walk to their executions singing praises. Even thinking along those lines raises some big red flags as to how brainwashed one would have to be. It goes against every basic survival instinct and desire to live. There's something seriously wrong with that mindset. Religion causes egregious damage to the minds of many. The idea of willing and joyful martyrdom is just one example.

I am sure that many Christians have and would conceal their beliefs in these circumstances, because we are imperfect humans, and the thought of pain, if not death, is very frightening to most of us.
I don't think any of us can know what we would do in those circumstances. But there have been many who have died for dearly held convictions, even where those convictions do not hold the promise of an afterlife, so it seems unsurprising that those who look forward to heaven would do so.

Yes. Just look at the numbers of Muslim suicide bombers. Are they justified in your opinion? They are Holy Martyrs to their fellow Muslims. With or without any fanciful Holy Spirit.

And some years ago in the jungles of South America hundreds of Americans died, killing their children in the process for good measure. All for the sake of an obscure preacher of an obscure California cult. Were they inspired by a Holy Spirit too? Was it Satan's work? How did a merciful Lord allow it? Just another of his less enlightened acts? I know, Lisa & Criada et al., I know. The ways of the Lord are mysterious & it is not for us ignorant humans... etc etc etc in the name of the father, the son & the holy ghost (sorry, spirit) & all that bullshit...

[Criada]

I am sure that many Christians have and would conceal their beliefs in these circumstances, because we are imperfect humans, and the thought of pain, if not death, is very frightening to most of us.
I don't think any of us can know what we would do in those circumstances. But there have been many who have died for dearly held convictions, even where those convictions do not hold the promise of an afterlife, so it seems unsurprising that those who look forward to heaven would do so.

Yes. Just look at the numbers of Muslim suicide bombers. Are they justified in your opinion? They are Holy Martyrs to their fellow Muslims. With or without any fanciful Holy Spirit.

And some years ago in the jungles of South America hundreds of Americans died, killing their children in the process for good measure. All for the sake of an obscure preacher of an obscure California cult. Were they inspired by a Holy Spirit too? Was it Satan's work? How did a merciful Lord allow it? Just another of his less enlightened acts? I know, Lisa & Criada et al., I know. The ways of the Lord are mysterious & it is not for us ignorant humans... etc etc etc in the name of the father, the son & the holy ghost (sorry, spirit) & all that bullshit...

To be honest, I can't really answer this. I can sympathise with the Muslim suicide bombers who give their lives for something they believe, however misguidedly, to be the will of God. Similarly with those who have died for their belief in a cult, whichever it may be, or who have given their life in battle for a cause they think just. I don't think that the Holy Spirit inspire them, but I do think that in a way they show us what is best inhuman nature, the willingness to sacrifice everything for something bigger and more important than one's own life.
Obviously where doing so kills others who have not volunteered to die, it becomes ethically untenable.
I think that God does help and sustain those who are martyrs, but I think that they are also sustained, like those others, by some yearning in the human spirit to bring about a better world, however they may define that, and to be able to pay the ultimate price if it seems to bring them to that goal.

[DMB]

Obviously where doing so kills others who have not volunteered to die, it becomes ethically untenable.


That wipes out a lot of the history of the church then. The equivalent of the modern jihadis were surely the crusaders. They were encouraged to join crusades by being promised forgiveness of their sins.

[JamesBannon]

Being a martyr is self-defeating. One can hardly affect an outcome when one is dead! Besides, those who would willingly die for a cause sacrifice their own basic humanity. General Patton said it best.

[David M]

I am not, I don't think. :dunno: If so, I apologize. I am trying to be more sensitive about doing that. It is not intentional. I think it is more an inability to put in words what I am thinking.

I just don't see how your link was a response to what I said. That's all. But you've just explained what you meant with the rest of your post.

My point is personal beliefs would not allow one to pretend to be an atheist. A Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian simply cannot do that and be a true believer. It is one of the "rules" but it is beyond that. It is the reason why many Christians will say that there are no deconversions. (Don't throw stuff at me, y'all, I am just explaining something here, not reflecting what I personally think) One can backslide. One can leave the church. One cannot deny the name of Christ without some serious consequences.

Peter did it and was forgiven. He repented immediately though. The lesson we have of Peter is the foundation of what I am trying to get across to you. To recant, to deny the name of Christ, is supposed to be impossible for any extended length of time for a "true" believer. One cannot claim to be a believer privately and claim to be an atheist publicly, not without a powerful conviction and grief.

If Christians went around doing this, there would have been no Roman persecution. See?

Christians go into hiding. Christians will walk to their executions singing praises. Christians do not pretend to be atheists. It simply does not happen.

I get your point.

But it does and did happen. I've met and talked to people who were pioneers and then komsomol'tsy and then party members who were Christians. It's what they had to do, and they were still believers. Were they lying to me? Or is it that they were believers but not True Believers? Does the distinction even matter? They self-identified as Christians and believed.

My wife was in the pioneers and she is a christian, as is her mother and her grandmother (who did fight in the Great Patriotic War) both of them were also party members. My wife is young enough that by the time she was of the age to join komsomol the grip of communism had relaxed enough that not joining was not a problem.

She well remembers dodging school teachers to attend church at night on important days such as easter to avoid being lectured at in class.

Keeping quiet about ones faith is not the same as denying it.

[Criada]

Being a martyr is self-defeating. One can hardly affect an outcome when one is dead! Besides, those who would willingly die for a cause sacrifice their own basic humanity. General Patton said it best.

It worked for Emily Davison, just as one example

[JamesBannon]

Being a martyr is self-defeating. One can hardly affect an outcome when one is dead! Besides, those who would willingly die for a cause sacrifice their own basic humanity. General Patton said it best.

It worked for Emily Davison, just as one example

Eh, no it didn't. She died. When the collective effort of the suffragettes finally persuaded dumb ol' guys that women were their intellectual equals, she would have reaped the benefits of that effort. Instead, her suicide was a mere gesture.

ETA: I'm not taking anything away from her sacrifice you understand. She did what she though was right, even if it was misguided.

[maddog]

I was assigned some reading material in a half-serious attempt to get me and Ronin to stop arguing with each other. Here is my assignment and my responses to it.

The article was pretty long so this may take several posts to get it all in.

Article in Blue. My responses in black.

Atheists and Anger

I want to talk about atheists and anger.

I'm angry that Mother Teresa took her personal suffering and despair at her lost faith in God (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/where-is-my-fai.html), and turned it into an obsession that led her to treat suffering as a beautiful gift from Christ to humanity, a beautiful offering from humanity to God, and a necessary part of spiritual salvation. And I'm angry that this obsession apparently led her to offer grotesquely inadequate medical care and pain relief at her hospitals and hospices, in essence taking her personal crisis of faith out on millions of desperately poor and helpless people.
So, this lady is angry that Mother Theresa had a crisis of faith, but did not deny God and turn into a poster child for atheism. Oh, okay.

Returning to the OP, I'd like to respond to this if I may:

I think the point about which the person is angry is NOT that Mother Theresa had a crisis of faith but did not use it to deny God and turn her back on God.

Rather, the point about which the blogger is angry is that Mother Theresa allowed her own feelings to interfere with the medical treatment of the patients in her care. In other words, whether or not Mother Theresa was a believer, whether or not she had a crisis of faith, whether or not she ended up losing or changing her belief, she had an obligation to give the best possible care to the people who came to her for help and treatment. But this person who is lauded as a saint apparently let her own feelings lead her to give INADEQUATE treatment to those who depended on her for PROPER treatment. THAT'S what would make me angry.

Wouldn't that make you angry too? I think that's the point of looking at what the blogger has written. To understand that there may be valid reasons for atheists to be angry.

[SallyAnne]

Wouldn't that make you angry too? I think that's the point of looking at what the blogger has written. To understand that there may be valid reasons for atheists to be angry.


What reasons do atheists have to be angry about the work of MT? They can go to the gutters of Calcutter and do all that hard work themselves if they think MT was crap, why criticise her? Why doesn't the blogger just get over there amongst the squalor and the crud and provide the adequate medical care himself if he's so concerned about it and feels that MT failed. Or is it just that he wants to rant on about a dead woman who committed most of her life to the poor and dejected and tried to do the best she could even as she went through her own personal turmoils and despair?

[SallyAnne]

Bashing religion gets very old, very quickly.



Does it ever. :drunk:

[lpetrich]

As to Mother Teresa, I think that she was a fraud, and compared to Biblical prophets and medieval saints, her miracle-working was extremely paltry.

Did MT ever speak in several languages without having to learn them?
Did MT ever calm any storms?
Did MT ever miraculously fill an empty oil can with oil or recharge a dead battery?
Did MT ever miraculously desalinate seawater?
Did MT ever point out any monster-containing trees?
Did a crab ever return a lost crucifix to MT?
Did MT ever cure blindness?
Did MT ever strike blind anyone who stole from her?
Did MT ever cause an earthquake in a town whose citizens said nasty things about her?
Did MT ever miraculously create any big piles of bread and fish?
Did MT ever raise anyone from the dead?
Did MT ever cure anyone with magical spit therapy?
Did MT ever walk on water?
Did MT ever turn water into wine?
Did MT ever zap some Missionaries of Charity employee who kept too much for herself?
Did MT ever turn some sticks into snakes?
Did MT ever sic a pack of stray dogs on some kids who teased her about being a wrinkled old hag?
Did MT ever have a competition with some Hindu priests about whose god was better at making a rain of fire from on high?


Her actual miracles?

"Curing" the stomach cancer of Monica Besra, someone who was being medically treated for it.
Creating an image of herself as a great humanitarian.
An inverse bread-and-fish miracle: the disappearance of large amounts of money from the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity, her order of nuns.

[DMB]

Try reading Christopher Hitchens's book The Missionary Position (http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240297813&sr=1-1)for a full critique of MT.

Do you seriously suppose, SallyAnne, that MT is the only person who ever helped the poor of India? Just because she garnered a lot of publicity? You should learn about the work of the Atheist Centre. This is atheist Indians helping the poor. They are not the only ones. And their help is a lot better than much of what MT provided.

[SallyAnne]

Do you seriously suppose, SallyAnne, that MT is the only person who ever helped the poor of India? Just because she garnered a lot of publicity? You should learn about the work of the Atheist Centre. This is atheist Indians helping the poor. They are not the only ones. And their help is a lot better than much of what MT provided.


So what? I wasn't making an argument for "ooo religion is so much better than ewww." I was referring to the person who had his long list of gripes about religion and felt justified to be angry at MT. Why be angry? Just get off his butt and go and do what he believes MT didn't. Simple.

Maybe you could send that poster to the Atheist Centre so he can go and help them out rather bore the rest of us with his gripes at a dead little old lady.

[SallyAnne]

As to Mother Teresa, I think that she was a fraud, and compared to Biblical prophets and medieval saints, her miracle-working was extremely paltry.

Did MT ever speak in several languages without having to learn them?
Did MT ever calm any storms?
Did MT ever miraculously fill an empty oil can with oil or recharge a dead battery?
Did MT ever miraculously desalinate seawater?
Did MT ever point out any monster-containing trees?
Did a crab ever return a lost crucifix to MT?
Did MT ever cure blindness?
Did MT ever strike blind anyone who stole from her?
Did MT ever cause an earthquake in a town whose citizens said nasty things about her?
Did MT ever miraculously create any big piles of bread and fish?
Did MT ever raise anyone from the dead?
Did MT ever cure anyone with magical spit therapy?
Did MT ever walk on water?
Did MT ever turn water into wine?
Did MT ever zap some Missionaries of Charity employee who kept too much for herself?
Did MT ever turn some sticks into snakes?
Did MT ever sic a pack of stray dogs on some kids who teased her about being a wrinkled old hag?
Did MT ever have a competition with some Hindu priests about whose god was better at making a rain of fire from on high?





huh? But you don't believe in the miracles so what's it to you anyway? If someone produced a sack of "miracles" for you, similar to the above, you'd believe would you?

[SallyAnne]

Try reading Christopher Hitchens's book The Missionary Position (http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240297813&sr=1-1)for a full critique of MT.



Oh I'm sure it will seek to bad mouth a dead woman. Frankly, I'm not so keen on how the whole world adored her when she was alive, and now she's dead has sought to besmirch her memory, it's pretty foul and hypocritical. Why didn't they say all this crud about her when she was alive? Instead of waiting for her to kick the bucket before they threw the slop at her. It's cowardly.

[DMB]

Do you seriously suppose, SallyAnne, that MT is the only person who ever helped the poor of India? Just because she garnered a lot of publicity? You should learn about the work of the Atheist Centre. This is atheist Indians helping the poor. They are not the only ones. And their help is a lot better than much of what MT provided.


So what? I wasn't making an argument for "ooo we're so much better than ewww." I was referring to the person who had his long list of gripes about religion and felt justified to be angry at MT. Why be angry? Just get off his butt and go and do what he believes MT didn't. Simple.

Maybe you could send that poster to the Atheist Centre so he can go and help them out rather bore the rest of us with his gripes at a dead little old lady.

Why do you suppose that either one must take MT at the Muggeridge evaluation or go off to India to help the poor oneself? It is a nonsensical dichotomy. Are you about to rush to India to help the poor? The MT problem lies more in the ridiculous glorification of a very flawed person than in MT herself. She is used as a poster girl for the RCC and it is about as honest as the stuff put out by AIG.

[SallyAnne]

Do you seriously suppose, SallyAnne, that MT is the only person who ever helped the poor of India? Just because she garnered a lot of publicity? You should learn about the work of the Atheist Centre. This is atheist Indians helping the poor. They are not the only ones. And their help is a lot better than much of what MT provided.


So what? I wasn't making an argument for "ooo we're so much better than ewww." I was referring to the person who had his long list of gripes about religion and felt justified to be angry at MT. Why be angry? Just get off his butt and go and do what he believes MT didn't. Simple.

Maybe you could send that poster to the Atheist Centre so he can go and help them out rather bore the rest of us with his gripes at a dead little old lady.

Why do you suppose that either one must take MT at the Muggeridge evaluation or go off to India to help the poor oneself? It is a nonsensical dichotomy. Are you about to rush to India to help the poor? The MT problem lies more in the ridiculous glorification of a very flawed person than in MT herself. She is used as a poster girl for the RCC and it is about as honest as the stuff put out by AIG.


Well, take it up with RCC, I don't even agree with the Catholics on their whole "saint" glorification get up.

[SallyAnne]

Why do you suppose that either one must take MT at the Muggeridge evaluation or go off to India to help the poor oneself? It is a nonsensical dichotomy. Are you about to rush to India to help the poor?

Nope, but I'm not angry about anyone who tries to.

[DMB]

Why do you suppose that either one must take MT at the Muggeridge evaluation or go off to India to help the poor oneself? It is a nonsensical dichotomy. Are you about to rush to India to help the poor?

Nope, but I'm not angry about anyone who tries to.

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

[SallyAnne]

Why do you suppose that either one must take MT at the Muggeridge evaluation or go off to India to help the poor oneself? It is a nonsensical dichotomy. Are you about to rush to India to help the poor?

Nope, but I'm not angry about anyone who tries to.

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

Why? When she was alive the whole world was "lauding" her all the time. Why has everyone suddenly turned against her?

[DMB]

Nope, but I'm not angry about anyone who tries to.

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

Why? When she was alive the world was "lauding" her all the time.
Not true. I was certainly criticising her long before she died, as were many others. She had a good publicity machine, though, that brought the money rolling into the RCC coffers.

Why has everyone suddenly turned against her?
Not true. She is still on the fast track to canonisation. The same people criticise her who did so before her death. The majority are insufficiently interested to dig any deeper than the propaganda.

[SallyAnne]

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

Why? When she was alive the world was "lauding" her all the time.
Not true. I was certainly criticising her long before she died, as were many others.


Were they? Where is this criticism and what were you criticising her for?

[SallyAnne]

Not true. She is still on the fast track to canonisation. The same people criticise her who did so before her death.


And who are they? When did they go public with their criticism?

[SallyAnne]

Not true. She is still on the fast track to canonisation.


And? Why does anyone who doesn't even believe in "saints" in the religious sense care about the canonisation of MT? Why are atheists bothered about something they don't even believe?

[David B]

Nope, but I'm not angry about anyone who tries to.

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

Why? When she was alive the whole world was "lauding" her all the time. Why has everyone suddenly turned against her?

Not quite the whole world.

There was criticism in her lifetime.

Justified criticism, IMV.

David

[SallyAnne]

It depends on the practicality of the help. One could argue that killing off a lot of them would help their population problem. I don't expect anyone here to agree with that, but I have heard such arguments from time to time. One person's "help" is another person's "outrage".

The point about MT is that she is lauded for what are supposed to be her motives; it's quite hard to laud her for actual achievements.

Why? When she was alive the whole world was "lauding" her all the time. Why has everyone suddenly turned against her?

Not quite the whole world.

There was criticism in her lifetime.

Justified criticism, IMV.

David



Where is it? What was said in her lifetime?

[DMB]

For a start there were people who, inspired by the Muggeridge glorification went over to Calcutta to work with her and became very disillusioned. And I and many others were particularly critical of her typically orthodox Catholic attitude of preaching against contraception, in a country where so much of the terrible poverty is due to population growth.

ETA I do suggest reading Hitchens's book.

[David B]

Why? When she was alive the whole world was "lauding" her all the time. Why has everyone suddenly turned against her?

Not quite the whole world.

There was criticism in her lifetime.

Justified criticism, IMV.

David



Where is it? What was said in her lifetime?

For a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_(book)

Work calls

David

[SallyAnne]

Only Hitchens seems to have collated these criticisms then? That figures. Got anyone objective?

[lpetrich]

(me on MT's lack of miracle-working by Biblical and medieval standards...)

huh? But you don't believe in the miracles so what's it to you anyway? If someone produced a sack of "miracles" for you, similar to the above, you'd believe would you?
First, as Carl Sagan would have said, I don't want to believe, I want to know. I'd want to make sure that they had actually happened and were not something else.

And I was also noting how paltry MT's alleged miracles seem by the standards of Biblical prophets and medieval saints. Philosopher David Hume noted that in his essay on miracles, which he wrote about 250 years ago, and it is still true today.


Not true. She is still on the fast track to canonisation.
And? Why does anyone who doesn't even believe in "saints" in the religious sense care about the canonisation of MT? Why are atheists bothered about something they don't even believe?
Because that reflects the Vatican's opinion on her, that the Church's leaders are rushing to make her an Officially Recognized Saint, even though they usually dawdle over would-be saints.

[SallyAnne]

Because that reflects the Vatican's opinion on her, that the Church's leaders are rushing to make her an Officially Recognized Saint, even though they usually dawdle over would-be saints.



Do atheists seriously care what the Vatican says? LOL, that's hilarious. That's like me caring about what scientist is going to get a posthumous award. Who cares.

Blimey, you obviously take the Catholics more seriously than I do.

[DMB]

The rush to canonise MT is part of the whole, largely successful, publicity machine. MT was a Catholic and has a (IMO) undeserved reputation for pure goodness. You had obviously bought the story because you were unaware of any criticism of MT.

I do suggest you read Hitchens's book before dismissing it so blithely. There was another, longer book written by an Indian, but it is not available in the West. And there were occasional critical newspaper articles that preceded MT's death. So Hitchens didn't attack her single-handedly. He did go to Calcutta, however, to see for himself.

[SallyAnne]

The rush to canonise MT is part of the whole, largely successful, publicity machine. MT was a Catholic and has a (IMO) undeserved reputation for pure goodness. You had obviously bought the story because you were unaware of any criticism of MT.

No, I didn't take any notice of MT, only that the wider world seemed to venerate her.


I do suggest you read Hitchens's book before dismissing it so blithely. There was another, longer book written by an Indian, but it is not available in the West. And there were occasional critical newspaper articles that preceded MT's death. So Hitchens didn't attack her single-handedly. He did go to Calcutta, however, to see for himself.


But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.

[SallyAnne]

And I was also noting how paltry MT's alleged miracles seem by the standards of Biblical prophets and medieval saints.


But why would you even make those comparisons when you don't believe it? I assumed you don't believe in miracles? So that's like comparing a fairytale with other fairytales isn't it? So why would you be making comparisons on what you regard to be false in the first place?

[DMB]

The rush to canonise MT is part of the whole, largely successful, publicity machine. MT was a Catholic and has a (IMO) undeserved reputation for pure goodness. You had obviously bought the story because you were unaware of any criticism of MT.

No, I didn't take any notice of MT, only that the wider world seemed to venerate her.


I do suggest you read Hitchens's book before dismissing it so blithely. There was another, longer book written by an Indian, but it is not available in the West. And there were occasional critical newspaper articles that preceded MT's death. So Hitchens didn't attack her single-handedly. He did go to Calcutta, however, to see for himself.


But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.

I take the RCC very seriously indeed. It is a very powerful organisation which has the capacity to create a lot of misery in the world, and uses that capacity to the full.

[Worldtraveller]

The rush to canonise MT is part of the whole, largely successful, publicity machine. MT was a Catholic and has a (IMO) undeserved reputation for pure goodness. You had obviously bought the story because you were unaware of any criticism of MT.

No, I didn't take any notice of MT, only that the wider world seemed to venerate her.


I do suggest you read Hitchens's book before dismissing it so blithely. There was another, longer book written by an Indian, but it is not available in the West. And there were occasional critical newspaper articles that preceded MT's death. So Hitchens didn't attack her single-handedly. He did go to Calcutta, however, to see for himself.


But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.
This is the second or third thread where you've gone on and on, then claimed not to care. If you don't care, STFU and GTFO, with all due respect.

[Barbarian]

...snip ...
But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.
This is the second or third thread where you've gone on and on, then claimed not to care. If you don't care, STFU and GTFO, with all due respect.You have just provided SallyAnne with the recommended daily intake of Interaction with Angry Atheist(tm). She is now officially persecuted on this board. Need moar lions.

SallyAnne, by all means stay and keep posting. But you should know that there is a poll thread in an atheist forum here that you, as a theist, cannot access, and which asks 'What's SallyAnne's beef with atheists?'. It goes right now 'She is reacting to bad past experiences': 0, 'She is overcompensating her inferiority complex': 1, 'She knows deep down that her faith is BS': 6, 'Magical brownies': 2. Just saying.

[Lisa0315]

...snip ...
But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.
This is the second or third thread where you've gone on and on, then claimed not to care. If you don't care, STFU and GTFO, with all due respect.You have just provided SallyAnne with the recommended daily intake of Interaction with Angry Atheist(tm). She is now officially persecuted on this board. Need moar lions.

SallyAnne, by all means stay and keep posting. But you should know that there is a poll thread in an atheist forum here that you, as a theist, cannot access, and which asks 'What's SallyAnne's beef with atheists?'. It goes right now 'She is reacting to bad past experiences': 0, 'She is overcompensating her inferiority complex': 1, 'She knows deep down that her faith is BS': 6, 'Magical brownies': 2. Just saying.

I voted Magical Brownies through my atheist sock account.

Lisa

[Barbarian]

I voted Magical Brownies through my atheist sock account.

LisaI kinda suspected the Ronin account to be your sock, but now I see it's not. On the plus side, you must be one of the only two voters for Magical Brownies.

[Lisa0315]

I voted Magical Brownies through my atheist sock account.

LisaI kinda suspected the Ronin account to be your sock, but now I see it's not. On the plus side, you must be one of the only two voters for Magical Brownies.

Did you really? :D Damn, that would have been some serious lulz right there! Actually, I am Per's sock. ;)

[maddog]

Addressing Lisa once again, the point about which the blogger is angry is not whether Mother Theresa's crisis of faith did or did not cause her to stop believing, or to lose her faith, or become an atheist or anything like that.

The point is that Mother Theresa's crisis of faith caused her to become obsessed with suffering. Inviting people to her hospital for treatment for illness, and then refusing treatment because she intended to cause them suffering, because she believed in her own mind that suffering was somehow required to achieve faith, was a betrayal of her patients. Rather than using the hospital to alleviate suffering, she deliberately caused her patients to suffer more. The REASON she caused her patients to suffer was because of her hard clinging to a religious doctrine that suffering is beautiful or necessary.

It doesn't matter who it is, someone famous like Mother Theresa or someone anonymous. If you are in the business of medical treatment, your ethical obligation is to help, not to hurt. to alleviate suffering, not increase suffering.

[Lisa0315]

Addressing Lisa once again, the point about which the blogger is angry is not whether Mother Theresa's crisis of faith did or did not cause her to stop believing, or to lose her faith, or become an atheist or anything like that.

The point is that Mother Theresa's crisis of faith caused her to become obsessed with suffering. Inviting people to her hospital for treatment for illness, and then refusing treatment because she intended to cause them suffering, because she believed in her own mind that suffering was somehow required to achieve faith, was a betrayal of her patients. Rather than using the hospital to alleviate suffering, she deliberately caused her patients to suffer more. The REASON she caused her patients to suffer was because of her hard clinging to a religious doctrine that suffering is beautiful or necessary.

It doesn't matter who it is, someone famous like Mother Theresa or someone anonymous. If you are in the business of medical treatment, your ethical obligation is to help, not to hurt. to alleviate suffering, not increase suffering.

I have heard this before, but I would like to see the source before I comment.

Lisa

[maddog]

Addressing Lisa once again, the point about which the blogger is angry is not whether Mother Theresa's crisis of faith did or did not cause her to stop believing, or to lose her faith, or become an atheist or anything like that.

The point is that Mother Theresa's crisis of faith caused her to become obsessed with suffering. Inviting people to her hospital for treatment for illness, and then refusing treatment because she intended to cause them suffering, because she believed in her own mind that suffering was somehow required to achieve faith, was a betrayal of her patients. Rather than using the hospital to alleviate suffering, she deliberately caused her patients to suffer more. The REASON she caused her patients to suffer was because of her hard clinging to a religious doctrine that suffering is beautiful or necessary.

It doesn't matter who it is, someone famous like Mother Theresa or someone anonymous. If you are in the business of medical treatment, your ethical obligation is to help, not to hurt. to alleviate suffering, not increase suffering.

I have heard this before, but I would like to see the source before I comment.

Lisa

The link was provided in the blogger's remarks.

[Lisa0315]

I didn't see that before. I will have to wait to read it because it is blocked here at work.

Lisa

[dancer_rnb]

Oh FSM, not the old "Nazism was atheistic" canard again.

What do you know about it? Were you there? Just read about it? Saw it all on the Internet?
You think the Nazis held church parades? Took Lutheran/Catholic/Calvinist communion at Easter?

Family history. Grandparents who immigrated from Germany were Catholics. Grandmother's father was a recruiter for the National Socialists.

[maddog]

In any case, the point I am trying to make is that many of your answers to the blogger's concerns seem defensive of your point of view, rather than understanding of what the blogger's concern is.

Even if the blogger is mistaken about the actual facts, the blogger believes certain things to be true. IF those things are true, don't they provide a justifiable reason to be angry?

The GHWB comment, for example, that "atheists are not regarded as citizens or patriots," is a despicable comment, IF TRUE. You yourself agreed that the comment would make you angry too. My understanding is that investigation has since shown that GHWB's comment cannot be reliably documented.

Now, the source that the blogger links to about Mother Theresa may or may not be correct. The person who wrote the source article appears to have had access to Mother Theresa's own diaries or writings as a description of her crisis of faith, the meaning for her of suffering, and what that crisis of faith and the doctrine of suffering led her to do or not do. Thus, the blogger did their homework: they read what someone -- with access to original materials written by Mother Theresa herself -- had researched and reported about Mother Theresa. Based on the scholarship of the author of the source article, i.e., with some warrant for believing it to be true, wouldn't the conduct ascribed to Mother Theresa be objectionable? If religion causes someone, in the guise of providing hospital care, to deliberately cause patients more suffering, wouldn't that be a good reason to be angry at the religious doctrine that would cause someone to do that?

the point of YOUR homework exercise is not necessarily to critique all the sources, but to UNDERSTAND the blogger's point of view, no? Not to defend or parry, but to achieve empathy, communication, understanding, right?

must go now, sorry.

well wishes,

md

[Lisa0315]

In any case, the point I am trying to make is that many of your answers to the blogger's concerns seem defensive of your point of view, rather than understanding of what the blogger's concern is.

Even if the blogger is mistaken about the actual facts, the blogger believes certain things to be true. IF those things are true, don't they provide a justifiable reason to be angry?

The GHWB comment, for example, that "atheists are not regarded as citizens or patriots," is a despicable comment, IF TRUE. You yourself agreed that the comment would make you angry too. My understanding is that investigation has since shown that GHWB's comment cannot be reliably documented.

Now, the source that the blogger links to about Mother Theresa may or may not be correct. The person who wrote the source article appears to have had access to Mother Theresa's own diaries or writings as a description of her crisis of faith, the meaning for her of suffering, and what that crisis of faith and the doctrine of suffering led her to do or not do. Thus, the blogger did their homework: they read what someone -- with access to original materials written by Mother Theresa herself -- had researched and reported about Mother Theresa. Based on the scholarship of the author of the source article, i.e., with some warrant for believing it to be true, wouldn't the conduct ascribed to Mother Theresa be objectionable? If religion causes someone, in the guise of providing hospital care, to deliberately cause patients more suffering, wouldn't that be a good reason to be angry at the religious doctrine that would cause someone to do that?

the point of YOUR homework exercise is not necessarily to critique all the sources, but to UNDERSTAND the blogger's point of view, no? Not to defend or parry, but to achieve empathy, communication, understanding, right?

must go now, sorry.

well wishes,

md

That is true, MD, the part of the point of my homework assignment. However, at the time, I was admittedly in a corner trying to fight my way out. I can see things a little more clearly now.

Lisa

[maddog]

Pax, no worries. :)

[4321lynx]

Oh FSM, not the old "Nazism was atheistic" canard again.

What do you know about it? Were you there? Just read about it? Saw it all on the Internet?
You think the Nazis held church parades? Took Lutheran/Catholic/Calvinist communion at Easter?

Family history. Grandparents who immigrated from Germany were Catholics. Grandmother's father was a recruiter for the National Socialists.

So? Some catholics were Nazis, look at the Austrians, Bavarians. Some Lutherans were Nazis. Most Germans were sympathisers with the Nazis, until they started losing the war. Watched any German newsreels of those days?

The Nazi party was atheist, used religion, in Germany, very cleverly posing as the only defence to openly atheistic Bolshevism.

[David B]

The rush to canonise MT is part of the whole, largely successful, publicity machine. MT was a Catholic and has a (IMO) undeserved reputation for pure goodness. You had obviously bought the story because you were unaware of any criticism of MT.

No, I didn't take any notice of MT, only that the wider world seemed to venerate her.


I do suggest you read Hitchens's book before dismissing it so blithely. There was another, longer book written by an Indian, but it is not available in the West. And there were occasional critical newspaper articles that preceded MT's death. So Hitchens didn't attack her single-handedly. He did go to Calcutta, however, to see for himself.


But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it,

An institution responsible for so many deaths and orphans because of its irresponsible position on contraception and abortion, an institution responsible for so much cruelty in its purportedly charitable homes, an institution responsible for covering up and further enabling sexual abuse of children on a wide scale needs to be treated seriously, I suggest.

I don't.

Perhaps you should.

David

[lpetrich]

But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.
Because we want to set the record straight.

Imagine if someone claimed something about you that you considered distasteful. Wouldn't you want to set the record straight?

To be more specific, let's say tha someone claimed that you are a Muslim. Wouldn't you want to set the record straight about that?


And I was also noting how paltry MT's alleged miracles seem by the standards of Biblical prophets and medieval saints.
But why would you even make those comparisons when you don't believe it? I assumed you don't believe in miracles? So that's like comparing a fairytale with other fairytales isn't it? So why would you be making comparisons on what you regard to be false in the first place?
SallyAnne, imagine that you didn't know in advance. How would you come to a conclusion?

What I was pointing out that claimed miracles have a shyness effect -- the better the documentation and verification, the smaller the miracles. And Mother Teresa's non-working of Biblical and medieval miracles fits right in.

It's the same sort of thing with psi research. Psi researchers started out in the late 19th cy. with claims of ghosts and the like, but by the middle of the 20th cy., the more reputable ones confined themselves to effects with decks of cards, and in the late 20th cy., some of them confined themselves to even smaller effects, like manipulation of radioactive decay. Instead of bigger and bigger results, they claim smaller and smaller results.

[lpetrich]

The Nazi party was atheist, used religion, in Germany, very cleverly posing as the only defence to openly atheistic Bolshevism.
The Nazi Party was NOT atheist. It was neutral to religion, unless you wish to call that atheist. Religion was fine with Nazi leaders, as long as the religion was pro-Nazi or at least was willing to accept the legitimacy of Nazism. Some Nazis were even known for believing that Jesus Christ was not Jewish and was a victim of the Jews.

[4321lynx]

delete

[4321lynx]

The Nazi party was atheist, used religion, in Germany, very cleverly posing as the only defence to openly atheistic Bolshevism.
The Nazi Party was NOT atheist. It was neutral to religion, unless you wish to call that atheist. Religion was fine with Nazi leaders, as long as the religion was pro-Nazi or at least was willing to accept the legitimacy of Nazism. Some Nazis were even known for believing that Jesus Christ was not Jewish and was a victim of the Jews.

Yes. Non-activist atheists. I've been one since I was 14 (atheist NOT nazi:)).
The ones who believe JC was not a Jew were probably the catholics & the lutherans, church-going, carol-singing, communion-taking at easter, (do lutherans take communion?), otherwise nonactive religiously, "pious" German patriots/nationalists, Nazi Party members or not.

[Lisa0315]

Uhm, Jesus Christ was a Jew if that helps.

[Jobar]

Hitler detested atheism. He wrote 'In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognise the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the other...' (Mein Kampf)

From the New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2

ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin

Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshipers

In Freethinkers Hall , which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree.

Also, check out the reviews for The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521823714/freeratidiscb-20)

[4321lynx]

Uhm, Jesus Christ was a Jew if that helps.

Of course he was, Yeshua ben Yusuf, a radical rabbe preaching to Jews about a jewish-invented tribal god -- YHWH. Paul sort of mucked things up, not enough jews would go for Yeshua's heresy, so he preached to the dumb goyim.

[4321lynx]

Hitler detested atheism. He wrote 'In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognise the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the other...' (Mein Kampf)

From the New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2

ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED

Berlin

Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshipers

In Freethinkers Hall , which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree.

Also, check out the reviews for The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521823714/freeratidiscb-20)

The Freethinkers League was by 1933 an organisation under the leadership of Max Sievers, a communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Sievers

The Nazis used christian churches to consolidate their power. Had the morose communist morons done the same in Russia/Soviet Union, they might have been ruling the world by now. :)

[SallyAnne]

I take the RCC very seriously indeed.


Oh. ok.

[SallyAnne]

...snip ...
But why would I care? It seems that only "angry" atheists care about discrediting MT. You must take the RCC seriously to be so het up about it, I don't.
This is the second or third thread where you've gone on and on, then claimed not to care. If you don't care, STFU and GTFO, with all due respect.You have just provided SallyAnne with the recommended daily intake of Interaction with Angry Atheist(tm). She is now officially persecuted on this board. Need moar lions.

SallyAnne, by all means stay and keep posting. But you should know that there is a poll thread in an atheist forum here that you, as a theist, cannot access, and which asks 'What's SallyAnne's beef with atheists?'. It goes right now 'She is reacting to bad past experiences': 0, 'She is overcompensating her inferiority complex': 1, 'She knows deep down that her faith is BS': 6, 'Magical brownies': 2. Just saying.


If I were to vote for myself, I'd say I've spent far too much time around them. I should probably spend more time around Christians.

[David B]

This is the second or third thread where you've gone on and on, then claimed not to care. If you don't care, STFU and GTFO, with all due respect.You have just provided SallyAnne with the recommended daily intake of Interaction with Angry Atheist(tm). She is now officially persecuted on this board. Need moar lions.

SallyAnne, by all means stay and keep posting. But you should know that there is a poll thread in an atheist forum here that you, as a theist, cannot access, and which asks 'What's SallyAnne's beef with atheists?'. It goes right now 'She is reacting to bad past experiences': 0, 'She is overcompensating her inferiority complex': 1, 'She knows deep down that her faith is BS': 6, 'Magical brownies': 2. Just saying.


If I were to vote for myself, I'd say I've spent far too much time around them. I should probably spend more time around Christians.

You probably shouldn't, IMV.

Positive reinforcement can be very powerful, and when you get positive reinforcement for obviously, demonstrably wrong stuff, like a literal Adam and Eve, that is really bad news.

David

[miss djax]

I take the RCC very seriously indeed.


Oh. ok.

whats the point of anyone bothering to reply to you, sallyanne, if you're going to take the snarky catty road. people have gone out of their way to engage you and you're one liner posts don't come across well for you. they make you seem petty, disrespectful, and rude.

it's a discussion board. i can't speak for how other sites are ran but here, people discuss. and folks have gone out of their way to explain things to you.

saying 'i don't care' and 'why should i bother' only re-inforces the fact that you care.

like i said - it's a discussion board. discuss!