[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Atheist zealot: “If you believe this, you’re an idiot!”
Religious zealot: “If you don’t believe this, you are damned and will burn in Hell for all eternity!”
Which would you say is more judgmental?
[/QUOTE]
So, you jump from religious people to religious zealots instantaneously when it serves your prejudice. Is that part of the rational logical thinking you promote so vigorously?
I have a lot of trouble with this whole reasoned debate thing.
Tris
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
So, you jump from religious people to religious zealots instantaneously when it serves your prejudice. Is that part of the rational logical thinking you promote so vigorously?
I have a lot of trouble with this whole reasoned debate thing.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
Apparently so, since the topic of this thread is Atheist Zealotry, and I merely compared one of the results of Atheist Zealotry versus the same end result when it comes to Religious Zealotry. If you wish to discuss the tenets of non-zealots of the religious persuasion versus the tenets of non-zealots of the atheist persuasion, I’ll gladly do so, but I think Great Debates might be a better forum for that discussion.
The number one reason is training from a young age. trained from childhood and,sent to schools and church and religious classes .Then you wonder why kids are following in their parents footsteps. They are programmed that way. That is the single largest reason people are religious.
That is why Hindu people raise Hindu kids .Thats why families have the same beliefs. You train them that way.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Number one should be training. Taught from the time you are a kid ,then through schools and going to church. Taking a forming mind and directing it to a desired end.
[/QUOTE]
Just to note that the quote tags got messed up there.
My list wasn’t in order of importance, but I agree that training (part of the societal pressure) is #1.
I went to Hebrew School because my father sent me (not that I objected.) He sent me because only kids to went to Hebrew School got the all important Saturday bar mitzvah slot. The Saturday bar mitzvah slot allowed him to invite a lot of people and have a big party. If I played along, I’d have a big one like my friends and
<Sam Levinson>
I’d get presents. I’d get presents. I’d get presents.
</Sam Levinson.>
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Apparently so, since the topic of this thread is Atheist Zealotry, and I merely compared one of the results of Atheist Zealotry versus the same end result when it comes to Religious Zealotry. If you wish to discuss the tenets of non-zealots of the religious persuasion versus the tenets of non-zealots of the atheist persuasion, I’ll gladly do so, but I think Great Debates might be a better forum for that discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. You smoked out a perfect example of something I’ve seen over and over again. We say “fundamentalists say this” or “religious zealots say that” and they say “you people are always saying all religious people are fundamentalists.”
Maybe they can supply us with a list of YECers or believers in an inerrant Bible so we can criticize by name.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Wow. You smoked out a perfect example of something I’ve seen over and over again. We say “fundamentalists say this” or “religious zealots say that” and they say “you people are always saying all religious people are fundamentalists.”
Maybe they can supply us with a list of YECers or believers in an inerrant Bible so we can criticize by name.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, all of the recent criticisms of religious folks in this thread besides “Ur gonna go 2 hell” apply equally well to all members of most common religions, not just the zealots. Lest you think the other arguments are similarly limited.
(Plus, christians don’t have to say Ur gonna go 2 hell. Their religion says it for them.)
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Wow. You smoked out a perfect example of something I’ve seen over and over again. We say “fundamentalists say this” or “religious zealots say that” and they say “you people are always saying all religious people are fundamentalists.”
Maybe they can supply us with a list of YECers or believers in an inerrant Bible so we can criticize by name.
[/QUOTE]
Sure thing, right after we get a list of all those atheist zealots that are such a bother. I wait for them to come to my door, but they never knock. I look for them on the street corners, but those guys are handing out religious tracts. I look for them in politics, but all I can find usually are people professing their faith either in very specific or very general terms. I look for them among those who try to influence politicians by lobbying, and I find nothing worth mentioning. If you bring up the topic of famous atheist zealots, most people can only remember the name of one woman who died years ago, and they’ll probably get 3/4 of what she did or did not do wrong.
I think that maybe it isn’t atheistic zealotry that annoys some people-it’s the idea that atheistic zealotry might exist somewhere that ticks them off. They like their atheists to be quiet, unassuming and tolerant of whatever the religious impose upon them.
IMHO, of course.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
…Can you think of any examples where people believed something most people thought was absurd ,and with no proof, only to be shown correct later on?
Can you think of examples of every day common human interaction where we accept things as true without proof?
[/quote]
Are “proof” and “evidence” equal to you? Because I remember watching Uri Geller “bending keys and forks” in front of my own eyes-- the “proof” was the obviously bent/broken key/fork.
OTOH, evidence as to how it was done (the “broken/bent”, key/fork) was always lacking – other than the nebulous “power of the mind” which means, well, nothing. Turns out Occam’s Razor cut right through the BS – spoons/forks where already softened/bent – and it became a non-issue.
A magic trick IOW – never mind the HUMONGOUS world-wide hype at the time. Assuming you’re old enough to remember said sad scam, why would you fall for patently more ridiculous ones such as sky-pixies? Evidence “proves” you have none to back any and all supernatural claims. As does historical record.
BTW do you consider magic tricks supernatural due to the fact that most of us have no clue as to they are actually performed? Unless of course we want to find out.
Thanks in advance.
~Red – not literally
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
non-zealots of the religious persuasion
[/QUOTE]
Now there’s a religion I can endorse.
It’s always on a steady course
The Church of Mr. Ed
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m an optimist, so I think this will be for the better, but we have the old “I’d run amok without God” issue also.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe that for a moment. Quite the opposite; someone who bases his or her morality on God is the one who’s likely to run amok, because they’ve based their morality on the commands of their imaginary friend. Generally, an evil or insane imaginary friend, at that; most gods are nasty creatures. Given that, they can decide anything at all is moral, just by telling themselves that God wants them to do it. That’s what happens when you base your “morality” on a fantasy, instead of the real consequences of real actions in the real world.
That’s why I said that some people can overcome the “morally crippling” effects of religion; it IS crippling to people’s moral sense. When you base your moral decisions on a fantasy, it’s no suprise if they tend to be disasterously wrong. Even if they are well meaning, much less otherwise. Moral, civilized behavior largely depends on rejecting or ignoring religion.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Now there’s a religion I can endorse.
It’s always on a steady course
The Church of Mr. Ed
[/QUOTE]
Blasphemy! I darn you to Heck!*
*apologies to Scott Adams
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I don’t believe that for a moment. Quite the opposite; someone who bases his or her morality on God is the one who’s likely to run amok, because they’ve based their morality on the commands of their imaginary friend. Generally, an evil or insane imaginary friend, at that; most gods are nasty creatures. Given that, they can decide anything at all is moral, just by telling themselves that God wants them to do it. That’s what happens when you base your “morality” on a fantasy, instead of the real consequences of real actions in the real world.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I meant. Even the wackiest religionist has to admit that atheists don’t run amok without god, so they have to be worried that they’d run amok without the fear of hell. That’s the problem I was referring to.
Lohan you say “what else is there” but frankly you are suggesting that your personal observation of the world and what’s real or not is the actual fact and truth.
For me I’m willing to believe that another person might experience something I can not. And I think that’s why the anger comes out with regard to this topic.
If someone says they see a ghost you don’t berate and attack them the same way you do if someone says they have had a spiritual experience that they attribute to a higher force.
I mean seriously what kind of narcissist believes that what they experience and can or can not see outweighs the millions upon millions of people who say they have had a spiritual experience with something they name as GOD?
That’s what I find pathetic and sad. That the people who don’t have these experiences can’t just accept that they are one of the ones who don’t experience it. Instead they have negate everyone elses experiences as “stupid” or “bullshit” to make everyone else the one that is wrong.
For me if someone tells me they experienced God, I say good for them.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Of course, all of the recent criticisms of religious folks in this thread besides “Ur gonna go 2 hell” apply equally well to all members of most common religions, not just the zealots. Lest you think the other arguments are similarly limited.
(Plus, christians don’t have to say Ur gonna go 2 hell. Their religion says it for them.)
[/QUOTE]
Being Jewish, I was going to hell even when I still believed in god, so I’m used to it.
You’re right though - in this thread the criticism (like my four points) has been universal. However in just about any GD thread trying to figure out the algorithm Christians use in believing some parts of the Bible and not others we get the “you think we’re all alike” response from people who should really know better.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
That’s what I find pathetic and sad. That the people who don’t have these experiences can’t just accept that they are one of the ones who don’t experience it. Instead they have negate everyone elses experiences as “stupid” or “bullshit” to make everyone else the one that is wrong.
For me if someone tells me they experienced God, I say good for them.
[/QUOTE]
I experienced God. I used to believe in practically every rationalization and personalization expressed by theists here. Now I’m atheist who thinks religion is dangerous nonsense. How does that fit into your theory?
[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
My new theory is that atheists can actually cross the annoying threshold faster than religious people can, irrespective of their individual degree of zealousness.
This thread is my cite.
[/QUOTE]
What a steaming pile. No doubt you belong to the 160+ IQ members of the board (namely, all of them). Meanwhile, IRL, at 51 y.o., I have yet to be accosted by a single “atheist zealot” while, OTOH, it’s almost a daily occurrence (in my current country of residence) that some nut ball will get in my face and try to ‘save’ me from Og knows what. Extend that to my myriad of residences and I have yet to find an “atheist fundie” giving me any such schpeal.
Am I a atheist zealot? Hardly. Haven’t done a scientific study but I’d bet dollars to donuts that there are at least 50 True Believers (of any persuasion) to a heathen in this place (Dom Rep).
Zealots? Hate them all. But you’re quite off the mark comparing faith-based ones to most of us atheists, who, by and large, just want to be left alone.
Of course we’ve made some progress. Namely we’re no longer burned at the stake for some bullshit charge or another.
Thanx Og for small favors.
Religion and God are two diffent things. I’m sure you are slapping yourself because as a former theist now atheist I’m sure you have also come to the same conclusion.
I think that this is where atheists drop the ball. If you really want to get at other people’s beliefs being shoved down your throat, then you have to stop debating the “belief” and get to the shoving part.
The problem is that most angry atheists push up their shirt sleaves and start railing about proof of God and stupid blind faith yadda yadda yadda.
Bottom line is, you’re out numbered so shut up. No one gives a shit that you didn’t get Jesus smiling back in the crack whore’s mirror and an epiphany in the toilet.
What does matter is the tyranny of the masses. You theists are free to believe whatever you like. I accept that you as a theist might have had a personal relationship with Jesus and its all good.
But that’s your personal experience which you are welcome to share with everyone under the sun. You can believe whatever you like and even if I came to the realization that for me God was like the cupping practice of the universe, to give mankind a sense that things are “under control” that somethings over us, OKIE DAMN DOKIE if you are still grooving along believing. That’s fine.
But when it comes to law? Now we’re talking something else. If we’re gonna honor your faith then we’ve got to honor everyone elses so lets just keep it separate to some degree.
However we can’t attack the religion because if you head out into Possum Paw’s Tennessee where about 99.9 percent of the town is born again, its kind of hard to make your point that the rights of the individual outweigh the needs of the many. No one cares when everyone basically thinks the same. Why should they live in the social construct of the potential fallen through the cracker, when most people want a society that reflects their personal beliefs anyway.
Instead we have to assess the places the strides can be made. So lets look at Gay marriage and leave religion out of it. Lets leave religion out of the federal government and not worry so much about it on the local scale.
Yes that sucks when you are a lesbian living in Possum’s Paw, but if we truly want progress we need to take the path of least resistance. Not pick a fight and go kicking and screaming the whole way.
There are legal prescendences being made as we speak. The fact that angry atheists take the fighiest fight paths, makes me think this is a lot more to do with personal ego issues than actually making progress.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
If someone says they see a ghost you don’t berate and attack them the same way you do if someone says they have had a spiritual experience that they attribute to a higher force.
[/quote]
Hello ? Plenty of people DO make fun of people who claim to have seen ghosts. The ghost-believers get a bit more slack because they tend to be less dangerous.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
I mean seriously what kind of narcissist believes that what they experience and can or can not see outweighs the millions upon millions of people who say they have had a spiritual experience with something they name as GOD?
[/quote]
A “narcissist” who notices that they don’t even agree on what God is, or wants, or if it’s one or many, or anything really. One that notices that popularity has never been a mark of accuracy. One who notices that when religion make a claim that can be tested, it’s virtually always wrong; if anything, it’s worse than randomly guessing. One that notices that there’s no evidence for any of their claims about God, or of God’s existence, or that God is even possible. One that notices that most of the time what they claim doesn’t even make logical sense.
That kind of “narcissist”.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
That’s what I find pathetic and sad.
[/quote]
Oooooh, the typical bit where the the believer cries crocodile tears about the poor, unenlightened unbelievers.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
For me if someone tells me they experienced God, I say good for them.
[/QUOTE]
Why ? If they say they experienced fairies would you say the same thing ? Saying “I’ve just experienced God” is rather like saying “I’ve just had a lobotomy”; hardly something to applaud.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Sure thing, right after we get a list of all those atheist zealots that are such a bother. I wait for them to come to my door, but they never knock. I look for them on the street corners, but those guys are handing out religious tracts.
[/quote]
If an atheist zealot comes to my door, I hope she’s good looking and comes when my wife isn’t home. No luck so far. Two theist zealots, both of who I scared away so well they leave me alone.
Actually, I think the very idea that atheists exist bugs them, not atheist zealots. We have the nerve of being happy, successful, and being totally unconcerned about what drives their life. It’s kind of like telling a rabid fan that you don’t give a crap about football.
[QUOTE=red_awning]
Lohan you say “what else is there” but frankly you are suggesting that your personal observation of the world and what’s real or not is the actual fact and truth.
For me I’m willing to believe that another person might experience something I can not. And I think that’s why the anger comes out with regard to this topic.
If someone says they see a ghost you don’t berate and attack them the same way you do if someone says they have had a spiritual experience that they attribute to a higher force.
I mean seriously what kind of narcissist believes that what they experience and can or can not see outweighs the millions upon millions of people who say they have had a spiritual experience with something they name as GOD?
That’s what I find pathetic and sad. That the people who don’t have these experiences can’t just accept that they are one of the ones who don’t experience it. Instead they have negate everyone elses experiences as “stupid” or “bullshit” to make everyone else the one that is wrong.
For me if someone tells me they experienced God, I say good for them.
[/QUOTE]
You are making a critical error in overlooking the distinction between experiences and interpretations of experiences. Lots and lots of people have experienced things. Various things. And lots of people attribute some subset of their experiences to God, or label them as “spiritual”, usually for flimsy or overtly unjustified reasons.
Not even the most rabit atheist will claim that these experiences weren’t experienced; we just doubt the outrageous and rather ridiculous claims that any or all of these various experiences came from some “God”.