Well, thanks, but can you tell me which posts specifically you find to be so vile and full of spittle that they aren’t intelligent? And why, specifically?
Your entire rant in post 57, which I declined from quoting because it’s rather lengthy, is the rant of a crazed person. Whoever you’re attacking, whichever “religious people,” are not represented in this thread, and probably aren’t a demographically significant sample of religious people in general.
Shodan and Airman Doors, strong-minded people, don’t seem to give a shit. (although Shodan is trying to put forth, very badly, C. S. Lewis’s logical treatise on social values). Guinastasia also dismisses your entire post. As a Christian, I’ll go on record, too. Atheism is perfectly logical and I have no problem with anyone who ascribes to it. I myself was an atheist for the first 33 years of my life. No big deal.
Come on, you have to admit that’s a demeaning and inflammatory, offensive statement.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence, and getting super freaky defensive about some argument that’s in your head. And throwing around equally-crazy right-wing citations like there’s a fire sale on them.
I disagree with his larger point, but in this thread, you are the only one doing it. Are you purposely being an obnoxious, skewering atheist? Because that’s how you come across. For again, seemingly no reason.
This is a statement ignorant of history, atheist and generally, there have been lots of vocal atheists from Greek times to present, in all walks of life, including some famous Muslim scholars. It’s kind of the same fallacy that gets thrown around about homosexuality. Homosexuals never existed until they were out and proud! They were shunned by society! Simply not true as a blanket statement. Homosexuals and atheists have been persecuted at some times in history just like the Jews and Africans, but at other times all these groups have thrived, or at least, lived in peace, and written openly and philosophically about their beliefs and their station.
Now it’s true that atheists can’t get elected to government, and that is a big issue, and a hypocritical one, there are at least as many closet atheists as closet homosexuals in Congress, but I see the solution as electing more open people (now that there are more open people). Like I said, voting. I have no problem with virulence, personally, just because I’m judging you as off your rocker doesn’t mean I believe atheists in general are off their rocker. Just as everyone else in this thread believes.
Passionate, misguided, factually incorrect, and railing at enemies that AREN’T IN THIS THREAD.
I’m not going to quote any more of that wall of text, but hysteria remains in evidence.
Then you rant about the Jews. Then another long-winded freak-out screed for post #140 which I will not quote, but you use the word hate a lot, and shit, and oppression, and sheep, and extremism.
Then you have a calm, rational post on Islam. Then you have a calm, rational post on Hobbes’ social contract.
And then a somewhat hysterical, but at least short and to the point, excellent example of why this discussion matters with James Inhofe.
So it seems that atheist is just a word that makes your brain and body explode in rage.
Hell, you even have Bricker denouncing Robertson’s entire argument as a straw man.
Then you have Robert163 discussing the context of Groups Shaming Their Own among the atheist community.
So the only two people who have posted about atheism before you went off the rails had both done so in a relatively positive/neutral manner, treating atheists as human beings, one as a Christian (I think) and one as a fellow atheist himself (I think).
Then you fucking lose your mind, man. What the hell.
First, thanks for your reply to my request. Even though you think I’m wrong and hysterical, I appreciate that you took the time to make a level headed post to try to address my points.
I thought it was pretty clear that i was attacking the guy the OP linked to - the guy that said “everything is okay with atheists because there can’t be any right and wrong without god” - his ilk. Yes, people of that level of ignorance are rare on the SDMB, and I wasn’t implying that people in the thread were like that.
But do you think it’s completely off base? Have you never encountered people who said “atheists are just mad at god” or otherwise completely misunderstood why atheists came to their conclusions?
I was speaking about devoutly religious people as a whole. She said basically “uh I sort of maybe believe in some sort of vague god, so therefore it disproves everything you said about religious people” - obviously I was making a generalization, so her exception wouldn’t invalidate the rest of it, but she also clearly wasn’t the devout religious type that most of humanity has been.
The evidence I provided shows that even today, it’s very common for religious people to think atheists are scum.
Sorry, what right-wing citations are you talking about? The poll results comparing how people feel about atheists to other groups?
Maybe this stems from a misunderstanding of what I was saying in the first place. I was speculating at the motivations like the duck dynasty idiot, the guy quoted in the OP. You may be searching for someone in the thread that was the target of my first few posts, in which it looks like I was fighting with phantoms.
What? What rant about the Jews?
I won’t rehash it, but it’s my whole point that basically to a lot of religious people the only tolerable atheist is one who barely admits what they are, and basically apologetically. Anyone who’s willing to be open about it and to be critical of religion is viewed as an extremist. My prime example remains Richard Dawkins simply because he’s one to consistently make intellectual, polite arguments about religion, and if religious people think he’s the atheist equivalent of Osama Bin Laden or something, then obviously something is wrong there.
Could you explain what’s hysterical about the post on Inhofe?
I would suggest that the only reason you can even begin to think such a post is hysterical is that religion is so pervasive in influencing us to make poor public policy that it’s not that shocking because such absurdity is common. The guy is literally the head guy in the most influential country in the world to come up with a solution to global warming, and he doesn’t even believe it’s possible. Is the fact that I just used italics there what makes it hysterical? Because everything I said is, as far as I know, factually true. People aren’t alarmed enough about this. I don’t know how people can have a “meh” reaction about this. The rest of the world correctly thinks we’re insane.
Sucks to live in a country based on religious freedom.
Here’s the thing. If you and I can’t get along, when we agree on 99.9% of what’s important in life, and you and Richard Dawkins contradict each other, what can liberal Christians do against conservative Christians, where the gaps are so much wider? We can’t even clean our own house. Which, as this thread proves, is made of glass.
I’m a bit confused, here. Where did the hardware store come from? Was Mr. Robertson described as laughing about the rape and murder? Does this have anything to do with the incident in the OP?
I am also confused about why such a call for alarm. The incident in the OP was not one of someone advocating rape and/or murder. If stories about rape and murder is what the outrage is about, do you ever watch any TV. Shows like “Criminal Minds”, “Law and Order” (and its spin-offs), “CSI” (and its spin-offs), just to name a few particular popular ones, all focus on these subjects.
Are these shows evil and is that part of the problem? Are you saying someone shouldn’t be allowed to discuss one of these TV shows in a hardware store? You think that speech should be censored?
This thread was started as an attempt to make moderate Christians appear as evil because of …what, lack of action against a man who told a story (not real) at a prayer breakfast they were not invited to or perhaps even interested in? I am not sure why moderate Christians should be expected to pay attention to the comments from wing-nuts that are made in groups they are not a part of or concerned about.
I asked you first. What do you feel that moderate religious people are required to do, other than what they’re currently doing?
It might interest you to know that fundamentalism, Biblical literalism, etc, is a fairly recent philosophy – in fact, I believe the movement started in what, the late 1800s? It’s also a minority of believers – a very vocal minority, mind you, but a minority just the same.
I enjoyed it when doorhinge got beat like a drum at the top of this page.
The problem with religion is that it’s like anorexia…not especially dangerous in very small doses, but can spiral the fuck out of control with little warning and kill you. How do you combat such a thing? People are ignorant, especially those without much education or Internet access. The surprise is when otherwise non-ignorant people become extremists, like bin Laden, or other wealthy well-educated Muslims.
Also the folks at Sojourners Magazine: Sojourners Magazine | Sojourners
I part company here. Fundamentalists Christians out-organized mainliners back in the 1970s. Moderate and leftist Christians need to take responsibility for their decision to effectively sit on their hands. They can’t or at least shouldn’t blame the media: they need to take ownership of their behavior.
That’s what this is about, isn’t it? Moderate Christians want to be inclusive of conservatives within their own churches, so they won’t rock the boat too much. Fundamentalist evangelicals, OTOH, don’t have a problem with being loud and obnoxious: they even claim that those who don’t accept their squirrely beliefs aren’t really Christian.
Moderate and Leftish Christians have basically ceded the debate to the nutters, the Catholic Church excepted. I say they have a problem on their hands, if they care.
In some ways this is a bit of puzzle. I mean hard right Christians are basically walking glass houses: it shouldn’t be too difficult to lay down the smack. And if that’s insufficiently Christian (as it is in some traditional sense) then a viable alternative would be to repeatedly denounce certain Reverend’s behaviors as unchristian, without denying their sincere faith. That’s one approach anyway.
I’m not trolling. Everything I’ve said has been intellectually honest.
Could you be more specific in your criticism than a generic google search link? Are you saying that because Dawkins believes that one religion might have greater textual/cultural/doctrinal support for violence and oppression than another, he’s a spittle-flinging psychopath?
If the Aztec religion were still around today, it would clearly be more murderous and barbaric than the Abrahamic religions, right? So, then, if we’re allowed to look at the content of a religion, of its texts and cultures and doctrines, and judge it accordingly, then what are the odds that all religions that currently exist today are exactly equal on this account? Practically impossible.
People feel like they’re superior if they follow the “all sides are equal, everyone is just as bad, you’re all just so biased towards your own side that you don’t see it” philosophy of false equivalence. It’s actually an extremely easy position to hold - you don’t actually have to analyze the situation at hand and make nuanced judgments, you just declare everything equal. And you get to feel smug about it, because in your mind this makes you above the fray, above the petty squabbling of these blind partisans.
Additionally, it allows you to be an apologist for whatever you feel is the target of whatever group you’re talking to. You can turn right around and say “your criticism of X, which makes me uncomfortable, is invalid because all sides are equal and therefore your side is just as bad!” - which is generally both wrong and fallacious.
Rarely in life are two sides exactly equal in all ways. Evaluating them for what they are takes good faith mental effort.
Back to my more general point, would you concede that even if you can find one example of Dawkins losing his temper or something - which you have not yet demonstrated - would you concede that he’s generally very intellectual, very well explained, thought out, polite, and generally attacks ideas rather than people? And even so, he’s described by religious people as being a vile, raving hate monger?
Even so, imagine a hypothetical atheist who strives to do everything they can to make a polite, reasoned, civil criticism of religion, its flaws, and the harm it does. Someone who never raised their voice or insulted anyone. Do you think that the average deeply religious person would respect this “moderate atheist”?
No, almost certainly not. They would lie about his claims, they’d say over and over again how he was a crazy psychopath with spittle-induced rages who angrily and hatefully rants against their beliefs. Their beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny, and so they have to respond to scrutiny by acting as though the scrutiny was forbidden. They’d act as though the person is enacting some militant, harmful agenda by even daring to scrutinize their beliefs.
A good “moderate” atheist in their view is one that shuts up and never dares to question religion, the sort that have existed all through history but who kept quiet for fear of the consequences. To them, any atheist who’s willing to scrutinize their religion and not be ashamed of who they are is a militant extremist exactly because labelling such people, no matter how intellectual or civil, in that fashion is part of attempt to maintain the special privilege that they create for their own beliefs in our society.
It’s especially funny that they don’t even hate each other that much. “You believe in a different god than mine! I think your god isn’t real and you think mine isn’t real! Let’s fight to the death” is a moderate hatred, but someone who says “well, at most, only one of you can be right and one of you can be wrong. Can we stop to consider that you may both be wrong?” instantly earns a much greater hate from both groups.
And I think the reason for that - the reason that people are willing to say “I respect you for believing, even if you believe things that are totally contradictory to my worldview, but at least you have faith” is because they are essentially different flavors of the same line of thought, neither clearly superior to another. They’ve both made a choice to pursue faith and magical thinking rather than the much harder road of the truth.
But on some level they must realize how much they have to compartmentalize and contain their cognitive dissonance to keep their religious beliefs. So when someone comes along and says “Isn’t this all silly? I mean, really, let’s look at that critically” that’s a way greater threat than their way of thinking than the existence of has roughly equivelant-but-contradictory reigious beliefs. Coming into conflict with a person of another religion is sort of like rooting for two rival football teams. Yes, you’re hated enemies, you wear different colors, but hey, you’re both football teams, so no one is operating on a more advanced philosophical level. You can cheer louder and recruit more players and play harder and beat that other team.
But the person asking if religion makes sense at all is attacking at a much deeper level - if they truly consider his position, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
(post shortened)
If you wish to lay down the smack, you’re free to do so. Do you believe someone is stopping you?
You seem to be puzzled by the fact that other people aren’t doing what you expect, want, or demand that they do. It could be, and I’m just guessing, because they are not you, and might have different priorities than you.
Well said. I think it’s important to add that the OP deliberately chose to attack white Christian moderates. Which sounds a bit racist, to me, since Christian moderates come in many colors.
And you wish to share your oppression with others, or are you attempting to oppress others in the same manner because that some how seems fair to you?
What’s this? Inhofe was elected by millions of people? And you reject the voice of the people? I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that a self-proclaimed, extremist atheist demands everyone else should think as they do, and act as they do.
According to you, the voters are stupid, the committee is stupid, and Inhofe is stupid. I suggest you put your views to a test. You should run for office and see how many voters are interested in electing an extremist atheist to represent them. I predict a landslide.
In what way is he an extremist atheist?
Holy shit how dumb are you? Not only did you miss the obvious sarcasm of the first poet you quoted, but you’re defending a guy who thinks man cannot change the environment so no environmental laws are needed. And that I’m the one being unreasonable to criticize that this guy is the fucking most powerful legislator for environmental issues. And then you appeal to popularity, implying that whether or not global warming is real, and whether or not mankind can change the environment at all is not a matter of fact but whether or not I can beat him in an election.
You have to be trolling, right? You can’t be this dumb.
I really don’t give a shit if someone believes in God, just so they believe in something higher than covering their own ass and looking out for number one. I do, however, consider these matters opinions, over which reasonable people can differ. When someone says their opinion is fact, and if I disagree I’m just too stupid or irrational to accept reality, I get irritated. I get irritated whether the opinion is atheism, a particular religion, or pro-life. I have no idea how most religious believers feel about this: the subject doesn’t come up much, and I haven’t done a survey.
Ask him. He self-identified himself.
Do you see him as one?