Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT
 

mattttherman3:
Why am I arrogant? Because the idea of God disgusts me. I see symbols to god EVERYWHERE and it makes me MAD. You can't help but to feel your better than religious people. When you see a random guy talking to them self on the street, you think "ah, mental disorder". I almost think the same thing when I see or hear people pray. I could site other examples, but I'm arrogant because I'm pissed off.

Since atheism is the rejection of all gods, deities, supernatural, mysticism, etc., I'm really curious as to why you specifically seem to be an Anti-Christian God type. I mean, surely the symbol of the norse pagan religion, or the egyptian pantheon, or hinduism, fills you with just as much rage, right?

And if not, why not?

Well, specifically an anti-jewish god type, since the whole 'new covenant' thing that's a central tenant of Christianity.

Angelowl:
A bit off topic. But as a pagan, I find that the Hebrew god has been very much over-hyped since the days of Constantine. I'll admit he got a good idea for uniting the people but things got very wrong somewhere. Especially since the Orthodox church was at least into the middle ages very much pacifist. If the papacy hadn't abused its power then we would never have gotten into this mess.

Turning a religion centered about helping the less fortunate in society and not doing harm into a political movement about "holy war" and hatred of anything foreign and different. It boggles my mind.

On topic: yeah atheists can be a bit arrogant and even hostile at times. But it isn't the atheists who wants to burn me on a stake, hound me for my fucked up body, or raise an angry mob for my preferences. Militant atheists doesn't exist unless they are also part of an extreme political movement as well. Militant abrahemites on the other hand, turns their religion into said extreme political movement when they see fit.

Militant atheist would hate you as much, just for different reasons. The christian might hate you because you're a heathen (not a heretic, that's seperate thing). In the old days, yes, you would've been put to the sword, but that's the nature of cultural war of the time period. The christian culture was bigger, stronger, and more appealing to most people. For the most part today they'd probably just pray for you, though we must always calculate in fringe groups while acknowledging they are fringe.

But a militant atheist, a true militant atheist, treats all religions, and spiritualism, and mysticism, as not simply something they disagree with but something that they must actively stamp out. There's very very few militant atheist in the world.

But please don't confuse atheism with anti-christianity or anti-christian-godism.

Now given, at this time and in this place, you are correct. But give it time. Since man kind is inherently selfish and self-serving, ignorant and violent, then the only thing the larger atheist movement lack at this point is time. Given time, all of humanity is just as guilty of the horrible crimes thrown around. Does that forgive the crimes now?

No.

But it does give perspective. Once you accept that everyone is morally bankrupt, everyone is equally guilty on a more universal scale, then you can sort out the here and now and the fine details. For you you're most immediate threat is a percieved religious movement, mostly christian based, and it is not completely unfounded.

Ah, but for the great irony that the catholic church was a haven for the homosexual and the different for so many years. While it's not per say right that a person be forced to not be open with who and what they are, the death of monasticism really did change the landscape.

Bentusi16:

mattttherman3:
Why am I arrogant? Because the idea of God disgusts me. I see symbols to god EVERYWHERE and it makes me MAD. You can't help but to feel your better than religious people. When you see a random guy talking to them self on the street, you think "ah, mental disorder". I almost think the same thing when I see or hear people pray. I could site other examples, but I'm arrogant because I'm pissed off.

Since atheism is the rejection of all gods, deities, supernatural, mysticism, etc., I'm really curious as to why you specifically seem to be an Anti-Christian God type. I mean, surely the symbol of the norse pagan religion, or the egyptian pantheon, or hinduism, fills you with just as much rage, right?

And if not, why not?

Well, specifically an anti-jewish god type, since the whole 'new covenant' thing that's a central tenant of Christianity.

Well such an attitude would come from the fact that in the west, Christianity is the dominant religion and nearly all the symbols displayed and all the shit we take from religious people comes from christians. As such it would make sense that majority of our rage be directed at christianity.

You actually kind of provided the answer in your own question. Atheism is the rejection of god claims, as such we're only going to rile against claims that are actually made. I've never had someone put a hammer in my face and demand that I worship Thor, so it doesn't make any sense to complain about hammers and Thor. The bible and the christian god on the other hand ...

It should also be noted that minority religions often become a lot more secular in their viewpoints, since they also risk being drown out by the majority religion. So while we reject all religions, it is usually the majority religion that is the problem.

Bentusi16:
Since atheism is the rejection of all gods, deities, supernatural, mysticism, etc.,

Minor nitpick
Atheism in itself does not mean the rejection of mysticism or supernatural, or anything else, except, depending on the usage of the word, god and/or gods.
Atheism simply means non belief in god and/or gods.
Yes, almost all atheist are likely to also no believe in supernatural, mysticism, etc...
But that's general scepticism (shut up spell check, scepticism is a valid form of spelling), not atheism specifically.

Also, on the other point, i suspect that mattttherman3 is specifically peeved about Christians because they are the majority religion in the western world, and the one religion most people in these boards are likely to have more than a passing contact with.

Bentusi16:

Ah, but for the great irony that the catholic church was a haven for the homosexual and the different for so many years. While it's not per say right that a person be forced to not be open with who and what they are, the death of monasticism really did change the landscape.

citation?

nyysjan:

Bentusi16:
Since atheism is the rejection of all gods, deities, supernatural, mysticism, etc.,

Minor nitpick
Atheism in itself does not mean the rejection of mysticism or supernatural, or anything else, except, depending on the usage of the word, god and/or gods.
Atheism simply means non belief in god and/or gods.
Yes, almost all atheist are likely to also no believe in supernatural, mysticism, etc...
But that's general scepticism (shut up spell check, scepticism is a valid form of spelling), not atheism specifically.

Also, on the other point, i suspect that mattttherman3 is specifically peeved about Christians because they are the majority religion in the western world, and the one religion most people in these boards are likely to have more than a passing contact with.

Bentusi16:

Ah, but for the great irony that the catholic church was a haven for the homosexual and the different for so many years. While it's not per say right that a person be forced to not be open with who and what they are, the death of monasticism really did change the landscape.

citation?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gaymidages.asp

Welcome to history, it's mostly patchwork, but this is about the best I can give you.

Don't get me wrong, the church was still not happy about homosexuality; in fact they established brothels specifically to prevent it, because it was less of a sin then adultery, homosexuality, or buggery.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/984475/posts

It's less about "Are you gay" and more about "Are you celibate". The current situation really started in the 60's with John the XXIII

Quaxar:
Everybody run, it's zombie H.P. Lovecraft!

No but seriously, I now read that three times and I'm still not sure I understand the post. Would you mind to elaborate on that dystopian future scenario a bit?

In addition to my elaboration on the "what," I will explain the "why."

The ultimate goal of whoever is really in charge of the world is unlimited power. They are attempting to obtain it by summoning a power greater than themselves into existence. They are summoning this power into existence through endless human sacrifice in unimaginable amounts. While this would normally destroy a civilization, the methods they use inexplicably allow civilization to continue. This blatant contradiction is the greater power. It is the ability to gradually turn the laws of the Universe into servants instead of masters. Up is down, left is right, good is bad, the truth is a lie, and the lie is still a lie but it's the only thing left so people still believe it.

Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

Jdb:

Quaxar:
Everybody run, it's zombie H.P. Lovecraft!

No but seriously, I now read that three times and I'm still not sure I understand the post. Would you mind to elaborate on that dystopian future scenario a bit?

In addition to my elaboration on the "what," I will explain the "why."

The ultimate goal of whoever is really in charge of the world is unlimited power. They are attempting to obtain it by summoning a power greater than themselves into existence. They are summoning this power into existence through endless human sacrifice in unimaginable amounts. While this would normally destroy a civilization, the methods they use inexplicably allow civilization to continue. This blatant contradiction is the greater power. It is the ability to gradually turn the laws of the Universe into servants instead of masters. Up is down, left is right, good is bad, the truth is a lie, and the lie is still a lie but it's the only thing left so people still believe it.

So you are zombie H.P. Lovecraft. Pleased to meet you, I'm a great fan of your work.

And you're basing these conclusions on what exactly? I mean surely you must have seen overwhelming signs of all these things because you know that claiming someone is "summoning a great power through mass human sacrifices" without any evidence is a sign of madness? And please note I'm not calling you mad here, just remarking that you might want to consider adding a "where I know this from" to your elaborations because it is just so Lovecraftian.

Quaxar:

Jdb:

Quaxar:
Everybody run, it's zombie H.P. Lovecraft!

No but seriously, I now read that three times and I'm still not sure I understand the post. Would you mind to elaborate on that dystopian future scenario a bit?

In addition to my elaboration on the "what," I will explain the "why."

The ultimate goal of whoever is really in charge of the world is unlimited power. They are attempting to obtain it by summoning a power greater than themselves into existence. They are summoning this power into existence through endless human sacrifice in unimaginable amounts. While this would normally destroy a civilization, the methods they use inexplicably allow civilization to continue. This blatant contradiction is the greater power. It is the ability to gradually turn the laws of the Universe into servants instead of masters. Up is down, left is right, good is bad, the truth is a lie, and the lie is still a lie but it's the only thing left so people still believe it.

So you are zombie H.P. Lovecraft. Pleased to meet you, I'm a great fan of your work.

And you're basing these conclusions on what exactly? I mean surely you must have seen overwhelming signs of all these things because you know that claiming someone is "summoning a great power through mass human sacrifices" without any evidence is a sign of madness? And please note I'm not calling you mad here, just remarking that you might want to consider adding a "where I know this from" to your elaborations because it is just so Lovecraftian.

I find it improves the experience of his posts if you read them in the voice of Vincent Price.

Bentusi16:

nyysjan:

Bentusi16:
Since atheism is the rejection of all gods, deities, supernatural, mysticism, etc.,

Minor nitpick
Atheism in itself does not mean the rejection of mysticism or supernatural, or anything else, except, depending on the usage of the word, god and/or gods.
Atheism simply means non belief in god and/or gods.
Yes, almost all atheist are likely to also no believe in supernatural, mysticism, etc...
But that's general scepticism (shut up spell check, scepticism is a valid form of spelling), not atheism specifically.

Also, on the other point, i suspect that mattttherman3 is specifically peeved about Christians because they are the majority religion in the western world, and the one religion most people in these boards are likely to have more than a passing contact with.

Bentusi16:

Ah, but for the great irony that the catholic church was a haven for the homosexual and the different for so many years. While it's not per say right that a person be forced to not be open with who and what they are, the death of monasticism really did change the landscape.

citation?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gaymidages.asp

Welcome to history, it's mostly patchwork, but this is about the best I can give you.

Don't get me wrong, the church was still not happy about homosexuality; in fact they established brothels specifically to prevent it, because it was less of a sin then adultery, homosexuality, or buggery.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/984475/posts

It's less about "Are you gay" and more about "Are you celibate". The current situation really started in the 60's with John the XXIII

Those links seem less about haven (sanctuary), and more a hiding place, and "keep it in your pants" attitude, which when viewing Homosexuality as a choice (first post even describes it as a choice, which rather sours me to anything they might have to say), would mean they are not gay as they are not doing anything.
Also, Catholic church has a history of condemning lot of shit, while the higher hierarchies are busy doing it themselves, or at least protecting the ones doing it to avoid any blemish on the image of the church.

So, unless there are some actual records of Church actively and/or openly protecting people from being persecuted for their Homosexuality and/or other differences, claiming that they were some champions of the persecuted is pretty far fetched.
Of course, if you just meant that many gay people became priests/monks/nuns to avoid being questioned about not being married/lack of interest in women, then it's pretty accurate and i apologize reading things into your post.

I think the idea of Nietzsche' nature of the Superfluous, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, has been taken to such an extreme. It is problematic because most Christians, or indeed most religious people (of which I would count myself, though I do not belong to an organised religious ideology) may be as they are because they are, at least, genetically predisposed to spiritual pursuits. The nature of God, or Gods, or innumerable, capable, unnameable Spiritual presences lies squarely within the rational mind. Religion is a rationalist concept, particularly animistic and totemistic religious ideals.

Whilst I wager the nature of religious justification can be based on empirical notions (for instance, the Rainbow Serpent of Australian Aboriginal religions) ... it is always the leap that had already been made. And the leap to which I describe, is the notion of transcendental ideals of what constitutes a physical manifestation of the divine. The idea of Gods and Spirits is, of course, a rational construct that precedes the empirical 'justification'. Which would mean the notion of a divine state (Whether part of, or alien to, the human condition) is innate.

Now let's assume that this innate notion of spirituality (As it pertains to the beast of mankind) is not so much innate to all as it is a few (Which at the very least must be the case, if it is not to all mankind) ... then I do not understand the atheistic argument of religion as entirely, totally perscriptive. Nor do I see it as alien to true enlightenment.

If we are to presuppose that at the very least that some members of humanity are innately spiritual, then it is NOT a nature of 'What is real, and what is Superfluous' ... you're talking about a concrete faculty of what it is to be human. So to ask all people, evrywhere, to stop being 'ridiculous' believing in divine beings, you're turning around and arguing for a diminishment of what it is to be human.

I think there is a place for spirituality and science to co-exist peacefully. Just as there must be hope that there can be peace between all peoples concerning politics, economics, and natural laws concerning freedom and agency.

Jayemsal:
Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

You tend to sound like one with sarcasm and a recital people might expect from a two-year old. This makes Dan Savage sound like a laureate.

What happened to mutual respect for one another? Considering the topic, it's amazing how many here step up to the plate. It's not a challenge. I'm not even a Christian but this is just ridiculous.

AgedGrunt:

Jayemsal:
Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

You tend to sound like one with sarcasm and a recital people might expect from a two-year old. This makes Dan Savage sound like a laureate.

What happened to mutual respect for one another? Considering the topic, it's amazing how many here step up to the plate. It's not a challenge. I'm not even a Christian but this is just ridiculous.

Agreed. "Daddy" was over the line. It's a father figure, Jayemsal.

Come on now.

(Aside from that, nothing else seems to be objectionable.)

AgedGrunt:

Jayemsal:
Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

You tend to sound like one with sarcasm and a recital people might expect from a two-year old. This makes Dan Savage sound like a laureate.

What happened to mutual respect for one another? Considering the topic, it's amazing how many here step up to the plate. It's not a challenge. I'm not even a Christian but this is just ridiculous.

Given the respect that has traditionally been afforded atheists and homosexuals... no. Just no.

Respect for people (up to a point), sure. Many of our most revered philosophers and scientists believed in the spiritual realm. Respect for their superstitious, silly ideas? Not a chance in hell.

And before you respond, claiming that you were talking about respect for people and not ideas, note that I'm not interested, because I haven't seen you comment on a single theist's claim that all atheists are arrogant science-worshippers.

That really is quite funny. Christians get to threaten non-christians (or people with the wrong sort of christianity) with eternal torture in hell, but when an atheist states in public that he finds that silly, he's being "arrogant" and "militant".

Kaulen Fuhs:

Given the respect that has traditionally been afforded atheists and homosexuals... no. Just no.

Respect for people (up to a point), sure. Many of our most revered philosophers and scientists believed in the spiritual realm. Respect for their superstitious, silly ideas? Not a chance in hell.

And before you respond, claiming that you were talking about respect for people and not ideas, note that I'm not interested, because I haven't seen you comment on a single theist's claim that all atheists are arrogant science-worshippers.

We should all call out blanket statements and bigotry where we see it. I came back to see where this conversation went after taking a break, and it's right back to the same old story: they do it to us, so we can do it back to them. It's childish on its own, but when people think that makes it right, it is arrogant.

It doesn't matter what "side" starts it, what this group says and what another group responds to and don't justify to myself or others that I'm allowed to be an asshole because others don't respect who I am. I don't have an "us" and "them" mentality like some people.

That's some elephant sized false equivalency you've got going on there. You really think someone refusing to respect the catholic faith (as an example) is in any way comparable to what majority religions have done to prosecuted minorities over the centuries? I'm pretty damn sure that even calling a christian an idiot (for being a christian) is not quite comparable to, oh, burning people at the stake for example.

Christianity has a hell of a persecution complex going on. I mean, even calling someone like Dawkins "militant" is complete bullshit. (i guess i can't really argue with "arrogant") What exactly makes him militant? Writing books? Stating publicly that there's no god? Goading priests? Hell even insulting people is a far cry from being "militant". Take a look at what militant religious people do. Militant muslims are in the news every day. Militant christians bomb abortion clinics. Militant commit acts of terror against muslims.
And christians in the west are whining and calling people like Dawkins "militant" because they're saying mean things? Give me a freaking break.

McKitten:
That's some elephant sized false equivalency you've got going on there. You really think someone refusing to respect the catholic faith (as an example) is in any way comparable to what majority religions have done to prosecuted minorities over the centuries? I'm pretty damn sure that even calling a christian an idiot (for being a christian) is not quite comparable to, oh, burning people at the stake for example.

Christianity has a hell of a persecution complex going on. I mean, even calling someone like Dawkins "militant" is complete bullshit. (i guess i can't really argue with "arrogant") What exactly makes him militant? Writing books? Stating publicly that there's no god? Goading priests? Hell even insulting people is a far cry from being "militant". Take a look at what militant religious people do. Militant muslims are in the news every day. Militant christians bomb abortion clinics. Militant commit acts of terror against muslims.
And christians in the west are whining and calling people like Dawkins "militant" because they're saying mean things? Give me a freaking break.

Whats the point of saying arrogance isn't as bad as burning people? No one is getting burned at the stake anymore. We sort of collectively realized that shit shouldn't be allowed. That just sounds like its okay for one group to act inconsiderate because they're not as hateful as people from hundreds of years ago.

Calling a christian an idiot for just being a christian is in itself a stupid statement without knowing more about why they believe.

AgedGrunt:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Given the respect that has traditionally been afforded atheists and homosexuals... no. Just no.

Respect for people (up to a point), sure. Many of our most revered philosophers and scientists believed in the spiritual realm. Respect for their superstitious, silly ideas? Not a chance in hell.

And before you respond, claiming that you were talking about respect for people and not ideas, note that I'm not interested, because I haven't seen you comment on a single theist's claim that all atheists are arrogant science-worshippers.

We should all call out blanket statements and bigotry where we see it. I came back to see where this conversation went after taking a break, and it's right back to the same old story: they do it to us, so we can do it back to them. It's childish on its own, but when people think that makes it right, it is arrogant.

It doesn't matter what "side" starts it, what this group says and what another group responds to and don't justify to myself or others that I'm allowed to be an asshole because others don't respect who I am. I don't have an "us" and "them" mentality like some people.

That's good, I'm sure it makes life more pleasant for you than it is for me. Because I recognize that religious people have in the past and will continue to have that very attitude. That's the thing; it is us versus them, and every time monotheistic religion has held the power, they've lorded over anyone who disagreed with them. Now they aren't quite as mighty, and the default stance is a demand for "respect". But what monotheism is now and what it was in the past are inseperable. Let Christians practice "forgive and forget" if it pleases them. I'm a little too wary of past sins to simply ignore them.

Shadowstar38:

McKitten:
That's some elephant sized false equivalency you've got going on there. You really think someone refusing to respect the catholic faith (as an example) is in any way comparable to what majority religions have done to prosecuted minorities over the centuries? I'm pretty damn sure that even calling a christian an idiot (for being a christian) is not quite comparable to, oh, burning people at the stake for example.

Christianity has a hell of a persecution complex going on. I mean, even calling someone like Dawkins "militant" is complete bullshit. (i guess i can't really argue with "arrogant") What exactly makes him militant? Writing books? Stating publicly that there's no god? Goading priests? Hell even insulting people is a far cry from being "militant". Take a look at what militant religious people do. Militant muslims are in the news every day. Militant christians bomb abortion clinics. Militant commit acts of terror against muslims.
And christians in the west are whining and calling people like Dawkins "militant" because they're saying mean things? Give me a freaking break.

Whats the point of saying arrogance isn't as bad as burning people? No one is getting burned at the stake anymore. We sort of collectively realized that shit shouldn't be allowed. That just sounds like its okay for one group to act inconsiderate because they're not as hateful as people from hundreds of years ago.

Calling a christian an idiot for just being a christian is in itself a stupid statement without knowing more about why they believe.

Perhaps if theists didn't get their collective undergarments in a bunch every time someone suggested that there might not be a god, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Perhaps if theists didn't get their collective undergarments in a bunch every time someone suggested that there might not be a god, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Who cares? Explain to them people can believe in no god just as they believe in theirs. If someone's still bitching after that they're not worth your time. Point is, the world is full of stupid, and we need to not justify people's stupidity, even when we agree with them.

Shadowstar38:

Who cares? Explain to them people can believe in no god just as they believe in theirs. If someone's still bitching after that they're not worth your time. Point is, the world is full of stupid, and we need to not justify people's stupidity, even when we agree with them.

"Turn the other cheek" doesn't quite work when the group in question, the vast majority, occupies a privileged, near-untouchable position in society, and the institutions that represent it are able to use this influence to fight against equality and science.

When the religious institutions are campaigning against equal marriage law or stem cell research, the solution is not to turn the other cheek. It is worth our time to point out the absurdity of allowing an archaic, baseless belief from affecting modern law.

AgedGrunt:

Jayemsal:
Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

You tend to sound like one with sarcasm and a recital people might expect from a two-year old. This makes Dan Savage sound like a laureate.

What happened to mutual respect for one another? Considering the topic, it's amazing how many here step up to the plate. It's not a challenge. I'm not even a Christian but this is just ridiculous.

AgedGrunt:

Jayemsal:
Christians believe that the entire universe is controlled by an eternal daddy figure, who molded all of existence for them to use as they please, and is watching them day in and day out forever until the end of time, and not only do they never have to die, but they get to go to a perfect place in the sky where everything is happiness forever.

But I'm the arrogant one.

You tend to sound like one with sarcasm and a recital people might expect from a two-year old. This makes Dan Savage sound like a laureate.

What happened to mutual respect for one another? Considering the topic, it's amazing how many here step up to the plate. It's not a challenge. I'm not even a Christian but this is just ridiculous.

Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Maybe I'm just incredibly ignorant of more recent history, but when was the last time Christians started murdering people? If it was a good deal of time in the past then this line could be applied to everything: Germans, white people, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Americans, the English, etc. It's in poor taste to disrespect people living in the present just because people in the past who happen to be a part of the same group of people did something bad, and it really just makes you seem like an ass who doesn't deserve the respect of anyone.

LifeCharacter:

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Maybe I'm just incredibly ignorant of more recent history, but when was the last time Christians started murdering people? If it was a good deal of time in the past then this line could be applied to everything: Germans, white people, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Americans, the English, etc. It's in poor taste to disrespect people living in the present just because people in the past who happen to be a part of the same group of people did something bad, and it really just makes you seem like an ass who doesn't deserve the respect of anyone.

Very recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/gay-south-africa-conversion-deaths_n_3186820.html

If you honestly think Christians ever stopped justifying murder, you're far too naive.

Jayemsal:

LifeCharacter:

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Maybe I'm just incredibly ignorant of more recent history, but when was the last time Christians started murdering people? If it was a good deal of time in the past then this line could be applied to everything: Germans, white people, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Americans, the English, etc. It's in poor taste to disrespect people living in the present just because people in the past who happen to be a part of the same group of people did something bad, and it really just makes you seem like an ass who doesn't deserve the respect of anyone.

Very recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/gay-south-africa-conversion-deaths_n_3186820.html

If you honestly think Christians ever stopped justifying murder, you're far too naive.

You can't hold the whole of Christianity accountable for the psychos of the group. If someone tells you they're a christian, you still need to respect them.

Jayemsal:

LifeCharacter:

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Maybe I'm just incredibly ignorant of more recent history, but when was the last time Christians started murdering people? If it was a good deal of time in the past then this line could be applied to everything: Germans, white people, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Americans, the English, etc. It's in poor taste to disrespect people living in the present just because people in the past who happen to be a part of the same group of people did something bad, and it really just makes you seem like an ass who doesn't deserve the respect of anyone.

Very recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/gay-south-africa-conversion-deaths_n_3186820.html

If you honestly think Christians ever stopped justifying murder, you're far too naive.

Right, because, what was it, two people, did something awful, that must mean that what they did was a Christian thing and they have complete and total sanctions from the church to do what they did. It can't possibly mean that they're just horrible people who happen to be Christian. Hell it doesn't even say that the conversion camp was a Christian institution, meaning you seem to think that the only people in the world who have a problem with homosexuals are Christians, which is just incredibly wrong.

Shadowstar38:

If someone tells you they're a christian, you still need to respect them.

Okay, no.

I dont have to respect anyone, just because they want me to, especially on a flimsy premise such as that. In fact, what you just said, is exactly what has kept huxters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton getting paid off their titles for years.

So no, I do not HAVE to respect anyone, especially if they are christian.

Jayemsal:

Shadowstar38:

If someone tells you they're a christian, you still need to respect them.

Okay, no.

I dont have to respect anyone, just because they want me to, especially on a flimsy premise such as that. In fact, what you just said, is exactly what has kept huxters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton getting paid off their titles for years.

So no, I do not HAVE to respect anyone, especially if they are christian.

If you equally hate everyone, I guess that works as well. But the fact that someone is a christian is counting against them is kind of rediculos.

Shadowstar38:

Jayemsal:

Shadowstar38:

If someone tells you they're a christian, you still need to respect them.

Okay, no.

I dont have to respect anyone, just because they want me to, especially on a flimsy premise such as that. In fact, what you just said, is exactly what has kept huxters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton getting paid off their titles for years.

So no, I do not HAVE to respect anyone, especially if they are christian.

If you equally hate everyone, I guess that works as well. But the fact that someone is a christian is counting against them is kind of rediculos.

To be fair, it's only ridiculous if you see bigotry as ridiculous, though that's something that's very easy to do, so yeah, it's pretty ridiculous.

Shadowstar38:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Perhaps if theists didn't get their collective undergarments in a bunch every time someone suggested that there might not be a god, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Who cares? Explain to them people can believe in no god just as they believe in theirs. If someone's still bitching after that they're not worth your time. Point is, the world is full of stupid, and we need to not justify people's stupidity, even when we agree with them.

As Silvanus already said, it'd be nice if we could just ignore them. Problem is, Christianity is kind of ingrained in our culture, and simply ignoring it gives license to bigots to persecute whomever they please. It's only when people start pointing out that these beliefs are kind of baseless that their influence wanes.

McKitten:
That's some elephant sized false equivalency you've got going on there. You really think someone refusing to respect the catholic faith (as an example) is in any way comparable to what majority religions have done to prosecuted minorities over the centuries? I'm pretty damn sure that even calling a christian an idiot (for being a christian) is not quite comparable to, oh, burning people at the stake for example.

How was that false equivalency? You've said people are being "threatened" with torture in hell -- what?

If you want to criticize tenets of a faith or what has been said by others, use examples, sources and be clear without committing your own foul of damning entire groups of people who don't necessarily say or believe what you're refuting. You use the word militant a lot -- who has said that about Dawkins? You can't just take something and apply it to group -- much like you went on to do against "militant" Christians. I wouldn't say this is arrogant, it's bigotry.

Kaulen Fuhs:
That's good, I'm sure it makes life more pleasant for you than it is for me. Because I recognize that religious people have in the past and will continue to have that very attitude. That's the thing; it is us versus them, and every time monotheistic religion has held the power, they've lorded over anyone who disagreed with them. Now they aren't quite as mighty, and the default stance is a demand for "respect". But what monotheism is now and what it was in the past are inseperable. Let Christians practice "forgive and forget" if it pleases them. I'm a little too wary of past sins to simply ignore them.

It appears to me that what you think you recognize about religious people and your views on monotheistic religion are really the hatred you've been taught to believe and won't ever let go. I and many others don't want to continue this historic cycle, and want to build better communities where we can all get along. This mentality can't be allowed to continue as it only perpetuates division, conflict and war.

Silvanus:
"Turn the other cheek" doesn't quite work when the group in question, the vast majority, occupies a privileged, near-untouchable position in society, and the institutions that represent it are able to use this influence to fight against equality and science.

When the religious institutions are campaigning against equal marriage law or stem cell research, the solution is not to turn the other cheek. It is worth our time to point out the absurdity of allowing an archaic, baseless belief from affecting modern law.

You hold some very strong opinions, but you are lying, stereotyping and dismissing things as "archaic" and "baseless", perhaps without actually understanding why (or not caring for others' objections, as if they impede your view of progress).

The reality is people have opinions for many different reasons (and I'm actually surprised you left out abortion). Maybe the most important thing society can have is a debate of ideas, but it can't come with these divisions of people acting self-righteous and outright rejecting the other.

I don't entirely support abortion and favor gay marriage. None of that has anything to do with religion or spiritual belief. There is a moral compass inside us all. We must be careful about the language we use when we criticize, and you repeat "equality" as if religion is fighting for inequality. The vast majority of what you said is not true.

AgedGrunt:

You hold some very strong opinions, but you are lying, stereotyping and dismissing things as "archaic" and "baseless", perhaps without actually understanding why (or not caring for others' objections, as if they impede your view of progress).

The reality is people have opinions for many different reasons (and I'm actually surprised you left out abortion). Maybe the most important thing society can have is a debate of ideas, but it can't come with these divisions of people acting self-righteous and outright rejecting the other.

I don't entirely support abortion and favor gay marriage. None of that has anything to do with religion or spiritual belief. There is a moral compass inside us all. We must be careful about the language we use when we criticize, and you repeat "equality" as if religion is fighting for inequality. The vast majority of what you said is not true.

"Religion" is not fighting for inequality; many religious people, and groups, campaign for equality and tolerance and hunger relief. Many others go in the opposite direction, and scripture provides their justification, their smokescreen, and even their legal protection.

I understand full well why I labelled it as "baseless". I would call "baseless" any objective statement made without a shred of uncircumstantial evidence.

AgedGrunt:

Kaulen Fuhs:
That's good, I'm sure it makes life more pleasant for you than it is for me. Because I recognize that religious people have in the past and will continue to have that very attitude. That's the thing; it is us versus them, and every time monotheistic religion has held the power, they've lorded over anyone who disagreed with them. Now they aren't quite as mighty, and the default stance is a demand for "respect". But what monotheism is now and what it was in the past are inseperable. Let Christians practice "forgive and forget" if it pleases them. I'm a little too wary of past sins to simply ignore them.

It appears to me that what you think you recognize about religious people and your views on monotheistic religion are really the hatred you've been taught to believe and won't ever let go. I and many others don't want to continue this historic cycle, and want to build better communities where we can all get along. This mentality can't be allowed to continue as it only perpetuates division, conflict and war.

If by "taught to believe" you mean, "led by example", then yes. I was raised in the church, and am pretty well aware of what it can be like. The congregations I was part of weren't even particularly conservative.

Honestly, I hope you end up being vindicated here, and that we can coexist with monotheists, but history does not show this to be the case, and I'm simply not willing to let the benefit of the doubt be given.

Silvanus:
I understand full well why I labelled it as "baseless". I would call "baseless" any objective statement made without a shred of uncircumstantial evidence.

There are some baseless arguments made by religious institutions regarding social issues, but that wasn't the meat of your statement, which is that it's dangerous because "the vast majority, occupies a privileged, near-untouchable position in society, and the institutions that represent it are able to use this influence to fight against equality and science.

While it's true there are some battlegrounds over, say, creationism in public schools, your claim suggests a collective abuse of power to continue oppressing society. It was at least a sweeping, dogmatic generalization, even if claiming "vast majority". Without specifics or data, if possible, I don't know how one can honestly believe that.

Kaulen Fuhs:
If by "taught to believe" you mean, "led by example", then yes. I was raised in the church, and am pretty well aware of what it can be like. The congregations I was part of weren't even particularly conservative.

Honestly, I hope you end up being vindicated here, and that we can coexist with monotheists, but history does not show this to be the case, and I'm simply not willing to let the benefit of the doubt be given.

It doesn't sound like you want to give peace a chance, and believe people can never change. Despite what some would have us believe, we've made a lot of progress over the past 20+ years. What I'd hope for is people to want to build on that rather than get out the pitchforks and torches because of a Chick-fil-A restaurant, the Boy Scouts or some plastic decorations in a public building. If that's the fight for progress, then it looks more like purging.

AgedGrunt:

There are some baseless arguments made by religious institutions regarding social issues, but that wasn't the meat of your statement, which is that it's dangerous because "the vast majority, occupies a privileged, near-untouchable position in society, and the institutions that represent it are able to use this influence to fight against equality and science.

While it's true there are some battlegrounds over, say, creationism in public schools, your claim suggests a collective abuse of power to continue oppressing society. It was at least a sweeping, dogmatic generalization, even if claiming "vast majority". Without specifics or data, if possible, I don't know how one can honestly believe that.

The "vast majority" I mentioned referred to Christians, who, you'll notice, I did not collectively accuse of any abuse of power. That's selective reading on your part, I think.

You'll notice that I specified, "the institutions that represent it", and qualified this further on by clarifying that I recognise that "many" do not take part in such abuses.

I never suggested any vast conspiracy. I claimed that religious belief and the position of religion on society provides the justification and the protection for institutions to do some truly heinous stuff. I don't know how one can honestly dispute that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked