If you stop lumping everyone to the left of “Agnostic” together, you’ll offend a lot less people and we won’t need threads like this. Same goes for lumping the right together; I’m a *functional * atheist (ie. a deist) but I don’t feel the need to poke fun at people of faith.
I do reserve the right to criticize organized religion(s) for policies, procedures and actions which have a negative impact- but not a right to criticize belief itself.
I think we need to reserve the right to criticize organizations and people that have policies, procedures and actions which we perceive to have a negative impact - regardless of if they are religious.
But what is going on here is a sort of “Scouting is bad” - why? “Well, the Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists” -
They do. And my son isn’t a boy scout.
But Girl Scouts do not. (I’m uncertain about Bluebirds and Guides and the other scout programs in existence). And I happen to know a guy who is an atheist who has been leading inner city disadvantaged boy scout troops under the radar for twenty years. I don’t approve of the policies, procedures and actions of the BSA, but I do support his troops - because I believe that what he does for those boys is valuable - and because he and I believe what he can do within the BSA under the radar using their resources is more than he can do without it. And I buy girl scout cookies because girl scouts have nothing to do with BSA stupidity.
I think seeing God as a personal separate entity complicates things, however I also see it sometimes serves a purpose for the individual.
I’ve been investigating the Bahai Faith . Although they have a more traditional view of God they also teach
They readily admit they don’t know but they also believe they have a purpose,
Aside from their particular beliefs, overall they are taught to promote an independent investigation of the truth, personal and societal growth through equality and economic justice.
While we may not share their religious beliefs about God, prophets and so forth, I think we can appreciate their teachings and see that overall they are likely to have a more positive influence on society in general.
IMO they reflect the growth in religion they speak of. The very nature of religion is changing as mankind matures. Will it eventually fade completely? Not in the foreseeable future.
Most people and things they’re involved in are a mix of good and bad. We don’t have to focus on the bad and reject the whole. We can address the specifics and remain appreciative of the positives.
My own reasons for not criticizing religious beliefs is that such an exercise tends to be pointless.
Very often a religious belief is either based on an entirely subjective personal experience, or it is part of some sort of shared, corporate identity.
Attacking a belief in the first case is pointless because there are literally no frames of reference - it is like criticizing someone for claiming to be in love. Who am I to say if their emotions or beliefs are valid or not?
On the other hand - if the belief is part of a corporate identity, any criticism of that belief is likely to be seen as an attack on the identity, making people react defensively.
It is for the same reason I do not approve of prostheletizing.
Whatever your belief, there is only one way of “prostheletizing” I approve of - to attempt to live your life in such an exemplary manner, with such joy and peace, that those who encounter you are drawn to inquire into what you believe in, because of your positive example. If all, believers or not, agreed to this, we may not all agree on beliefs but the world sure would be the better for it …
Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit for your review and consideration Really Not All That Bright’s Spectrum of Religious Asshattery. Latin title to follow as soon as I can figure out a good idiomatic translation for “asshattery”.
Shodan, your royalty check will be in the mail whenever we publish.
No. I’m not talking about Jesus as a deity. Your defense does not hold up for Jesus. For God maybe, but not Jesus. It goes to one simple question: do you believe that the MAN Jesus did not live? That he is a total fabrication? Yes or no?
I find the “g_d” thing off-putting, as well. But it is my understanding that it is done out of great respect for certain believers. It’s as off-putting to me is this “Og” nonsense. They’re both not helpful in discussion to me, but the reason it is done does matter.
Yeah, I run into this problem a lot. I don’t see how two completely different concepts can use the same word to describe them, but evidently this is how it is. For purposes of clarity, religion, to me, has to include a deity that is conscious, that cares, and that can control the universe. The looser version, those people who don’t have deities but have a world view…I don’t see how they can be discussed in the same conversation. I’m not saying they can’t…I just need someone to show me why this* isn’t * apples and oranges. One has gods, magic and worship; both have an element of group think, but one attributes nothing to the supernatural. How can they be called the same thing? THey have some overlap, but are decidedly different concepts at their core.
Language is inexact. That’s why we add adjectives to our nouns and adjectives or use more specific and less general words, so that people understand we are talking about “Christian Fundamentalists” and not “the Dali Lama” when we are ranting about religious people. (Or that we are ranting about the Dali Lama and not snake handlers). This problem exists with all sorts of words other than religion - telling you I bought a blue dress is nearly meaningless when there are dozens of hues of blue.
Religion is separate from the continuum of belief. One can likewise ascribe to (or participate in) a religion (Unitarianism, Humanism, some forms of Buddhism, some secular Jews, hell, some Christians participate and self identify, but don’t believe) and not believe in a creator.
This has already been answered, but I’ll throw in my own Pit-mod spin:
The rule on trolling is meant to describe posting behavior that, when taken as a whole, reveals a primary motivation of trying to piss people off and cause a reaction. Assessing said motivation is of course highly subjective, which is why we have mods to make judgement calls. We wrote the forum rules to give you guys a general idea of how those calls are made, not to provide weapons for rules literalists to use against those they disagree with.
In the Pit, many posts are written specifically to piss people off. Calling someone a douchebag has no other purpose, really. So pointing out that someone’s Pit post was intended to annoy as proof of trolling is, well, retarded.
If you find yourself constantly trying to get the mods to rule against people in the Pit, maybe you should consider posting in another forum.
But he’s not considered to be just a man – his entire identity has to do with him being the son of god, which means he’s not a man. I’m not confused about when to capitalize a proper name and when not to; from an atheist standpoint, not capitalizing his name fits perfectly with my little mini-protest.
Regarding the “great respect for certain believers”, that’s not only irrelevant to an atheist, but is also not my understanding of the reason for the practice of omitting the “o”. According to Judaism 101:
No. Everyone agrees that he was a man. Some people also believe that he was the Son of God. Those that do not believe that—the majority of the world, by the way—STILL agree that he was a man. A man with a name. A name, like any other, that should be capitalized. It’s really that simple.
