Dogface, when you become the ONLY christian here on the SDMB, then your pathetic logic will apply. Until then, get off your high horse and actually think your responses out.
There you go again with your “I’m so persecuted act.” Oh, but you demand a DIRECT quote. :rolleyes:
Because every group is prejudiced against by someone.
“I hate tall people!” – short person.
“I hate preppies!” – goth type
“I hate tree-huggers!” – conservative industrialist
“I hate health-food nuts!” – junk food eather
Starting to get the picture?
Epimetheus, you specifically pointed me out as a direct example of a Christian who pushes his religion upon others. Produce specific instances to back up your direct and personal accusation.
What I did was commit the grievous and unforgivable act of pointing out that not all atheists are 100% automatically perfect, pure, and virtuous, that SOME of them actually are bigots. So, does the level of response mean that there are and never have been any bigoted atheists ever in all of history? Or is it a matter of the literary “protesteth overmuch”?
Oh, btw: Why don’t you go to Iran and discuss the benifits of Christianity to them. I am sure they are JUST as tolerant towards “you christians” as they are to athiests.
Why don’t I spell it out to you then.
You, Dogface, comes into a thread named “Why the prejudice against atheists” and put forth this gem:
Clearly you felt angry that some atheists felt persecuted, or hated by religious bigots, so to undermine and hijack, rudely, you make a parody of the OP. Wow, soo funny. In this, obviously you suggest that atheists make fun on ONLY christians. You make a stereotype, a bigoted sterotype.
Then you openly insult GodlessSkeptic, because he was matching your parody with one of his own. Yeah, real hard evidence of close-minded bigotry amongst the atheists there! Wow, you go boy!
I can play this game too: Provide DIRECT QUOTES of me pointing you out as a christian who pushes his religion upon others? Thought so…
Guess what Dogfart, this thread isn’t about atheists being 100% automatically perfect, so your involvement is not necessary. It only shows your bigotry that you hijacked this thread in the first place.
Dogface, not Dogfart.
Youu haven’t used those exact words, but you said that many atheists are hostile, intolerant and bigoted, and you compared atheism to the KKK. You even called Eve’s statement about Christians saying that God is the basis of morality “bigotry”. Sounds to me that you think of anything you don’t like, true or not, as “bigotry”. One can hardly expect people to take one seriously when one first compares atheists to the KKK, and then tries to claim that one does not have a major persecution complex.
O.K., hold the phone. I’m totally on your side in this debate, The Ryan, but I think it cheapens the debate when you misinterpret an analogy. He did not “compare atheists to the KKK”. What he said was, “Yes, of course, blame the Christians for the atheist taking it out on ME, just like black people are to blame for the KKK.” It is perhaps reactionary and overstated, but he’s quite obviously making the point that the actions of some Christians does not justify hatred towards him, if he doesn’t engage in those actions. It’s a valid point - if you hate someone merely because of the group that he belongs to, you are guilty of bigotry. I can’t see where he’s saying that atheists are the same as the KKK.
Dogface has said plenty that’s worthy of being attacked. Let’s not attack what he didn’t say.
Perhaps it has something to do with the vestiges of “Godless Communism,” and that the United States’s mortal enemy for half a century was the Soviet Union, an atheist society.
Mr Karl Marx, after all, famously said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Thus, perhaps, the association of atheism with Communism, and thus, with subversion and un-Americanism.
Think of sports fans. A Red Sox fan can see how someone can be attatched to the Cubs, and vice versa, even though they passionately disagree. But when someone comes along and claims that baseball is a stupid game, the two avid fans will inevitably band together and defend the game.
Also, to many theists, the very idea of there being no God is so ludicrous and ignorant as to not merit consideration, just as to many atheists, the very idea of there being a God is laughable and ludicrous.
I am not an Atheist, but I would be surprised if Secular Humanists were fiercer critics of Objectivists than of Christians. Those beliefs that are closer together tend to defend each other against beliefs that are further apart.
It has been my experience as an Atheist that people who have religion are particularly sensitive to debate about their faith.
Perhaps it is that they feel they are in the learning process and would easily falter when prompted to have facts…can’t prove your side of the battle for truth without facts, proof.
Well, I certainly agree that it cheapens the debate when one misinterprets an analogy. I’ve had quite a few people do that to me, and it is annoying, and it shows character that you put the integrity of the debate over ideological position. However, I did not make the decision to say what I said lightly; I said it because I believed that it was a fair assessment. I respectfully submit that your disagreement on this point is due to a failure to fully appreciate the subtleties of the exchange, as I will explain:
Ah, but that is not the central issue; no one said that hatred towards him is so justified, so any argument against such a position is merely a strawman. The actual point of disagreement is not whether this is okay, but who is responsible for this state of affairs. Kalhoun was implying that the prevalence and severity of Christian intolerance creates animosity towards individual Christians, even when they are not responsible. Dogface in turn implied that blaming Christians for atheists not liking individual Christians is similar to blaming blacks for the KKK not liking individual blacks. Now, granted, my saying that he was comparing atheists to the KKK was not an exhaustive explication of his analogy; the actual comparison is between atheists who have become fed up with Christians and the KKK. There is also an implied comparison between Christians persecuting atheists and blacks looking at white women, “stealing” jobs from whites, etc. Most of all, there is a comparison between the validity of atheist grievances against Christians, and the validity of the KKK’s grievances against blacks. The implication is that Christians in general are no more responsible for inspiring rancor on the part of atheists than blacks are for “driving” whites to lynch them. While atheist attitudes towards Christians and KKK attitudes towards blacks share some superficial similarity, they differ in one important respect: Christians, in aggregate, have brought it on themselves, while blacks have not. It is the attempt to brush this under the rug that I object to.
I disagree. Bigotry is an unreasonable hatred of someone. If one has had traumatic experiences on the hands of Christians, one may come to hate Christians in general. As long as this is based on actual emotional damage, and remains a purely emotional reaction without impairing one’s reason (i.e. “I realize that this isn’t rational, but that’s the way I feel. I will respect the rights of Christians, but I can’t make myself like them”), I wouldn’t consider it bigotry, anymore than a dog that once was conditioned by having a shock administered to it everytime a black person was around and who now can’t stand black people is “bigoted”. To say that someone is “guilty” of something is to imply that they chose to do it. Hate can be both an adjective and a verb; the latter is bigotry, the former not always is.
Neither do I. I do, however, see him comparing them.
Pardon me if my response is a hijack, or is considered “Witnessing.” I certainly intend it to be neither.
**In my opinion, a debate about religion is much like a debate among politicians.
In politics, both candidates are debating the merits of, let’s say, what to do about the economic surplus. One side wants to pay down the national debt with it all, saying that this will lessen the interest rates the federal government, and thus the people, will have to pay back over the long haul. The other side wants to cut taxes, saying that this extra money in the consumers’ hands will spur economic growth. Both say that their side will better strengthen the economy in the long run.
Quite obviously, it is impossible to “prove,” scientifically, the merits of the two sides. We do not possess a time machine to go back and make another trial run with a different economic policy, controlling for variables and the like. A person that demands concrete “proof” that an economic policy, or a social policy, or a foreign policy, is the correct policy will be gravely disappointed. After all, come election day, and after the candidate is sworn in, there is absolutely no way to show that one policy is the better one.
Bush cut taxes. Would Gore’s contrasting policy of paying down the debt have been more prosperous for the nation? The simple answer is that we have no idea. There is simply no way to say definitively one way or the other.
Personally, I believe that this is an indication not of the weakness of the political agendas, but of the format of evaluating them. It is hardly the politicians’ fault that their views cannot be “proven.” Nor is it a sign of irrationality that the politicians advocate views that have not been “proven.”
As a side note. Yes, I know that many out there would make the claim that empirical evidence can make the case one way or the other. For instance, (Reagan’s deregulation/Clinton’s policies/the internet boom) caused the economic good times of most of the Clinton administration, and thus, can be expected to do so again. This is where my analogy is weak. Seeing as we have no mechanism for peering into the afterlife, if there is one, there is no role for empiricism to play, whereas in politics, empirical evidence is frequently cited.
In terms of religion, then, what is the calculus by which we judge different faiths or absences of faith? We cannot judge on proof. That is impossible. We cannot judge on empiricism. We do not have the means to do so.
As I see it, there is one more way to judge. We cannot judge the credibility of the faith (or nonfaith) so we must judge the credibility of the believer (or nonbeliever) to make our final decision. After all, if the believer seems to be credible, it lends credibility to the espoused faith. This is, in my judgement, the crux of much of the cynicism about Christianity today. Christianity’s problem is a credibility problem.
In much of the public view, Christianity seems to have a black eye. We hear “Christian” and our thoughts turn to the homophobia of the 700 Club, the offensiveness of in-your-face witnessing, the cultural backwardness of the Pope and his views on abortion and sex, money-grubbing televangelists, the overt racism of Bob Jones University (though they’ve gotten better,) the “religious war against Islam” rhetoric of some of our military leaders, the hypocracy of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, the literary value (or lack thereof) of the Left Behind series, and the strange row over the confirmation of an openly gay Episcopal bishop. The most public Christians seem, to much of the population, undeserving of respect, and thus, the rest of Christianity seem less credible when they start to talk about religion.
I, as a Christian, firmly believe in the tenets of my faith and that it is my duty to follow the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations, and so it is my obligation to bring as many into the Church as possible.
So what are Christians to do?
The only sensible action is for Christians to begin acting like Christians again. People may ignore what we say, but they sure watch what we do. It does absolutely no good for The Church to proclaim the Good News with its lips and turn right around and proclaim the opposite with its actions. Our actions discredit our arguments.
According to the Bible, Jesus says that “They will know you are Christians by your love.” The best course of action for Christians is to become the loving, compassionate, good human beings that we believe God calls us to be. I can say with a great deal of certainty that Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Theresa brought more people to Christianity through their living testaments to Christ than Benny Hinn and the 700 Club have brought people to Christianity by their words. (Obviously, this is not to say that proclaiming the Gospel with the lips is bad. By no means. It is a great and powerful thing. Christians must always be mindful, though, that actions speak louder than words.)
As it is with every venture in human life, Christianity is easier said than done.
Saint Francis of Assisi (or perhaps it was Martin Luther) said it best. “Preach the Gospel in all your life. And if necessary, use words.” I pray that more of my Christian bretheren follow this advice.
To read a post after a non-spellchecked submission is to find typos. :smack:
Yup. Heard that one before.
Them: So, why not come down to my church sunday?
Me: Well, I’m an atheist.
Them: That doesn’t matter. Just come down and see what we have to offer you.
Me: Like I said, I don’t believe in god.
Them: What do you have against Christianity?
Me: Currently? Then fact that you are acting on behalf of Christianity by getting me to come to your church and NOT respecting my personal belief of not having a god.
There are certain elements of some of these posts I find odd. In particular, the frequent claims by many about being harassed by religious fanatics, a complaint that has been the basis of quite a few threads and numerous posts.
From the time I became an atheist in my late teens/early 20’s I have never been harassed, alarmed or disturbed by those who want to call themselves Christian. If anything, I was the obnoxious one to the believers for a small number of years.
Perhaps I live in a different social environment but very rarely have I ever encountered a person who gets in my face about religion, even if they know I have no religious beliefs. It’s been live and let live, all the way for the most part.
That is why I find stories from so many on this board about how they dealt with this or that religious fanatical proselytiser, who accosted them, and then heroically sent him or her off with a flea in his or her ear, just a little bit sus.
Its the silly smile and that look of “I know best” that gets too me… and the stupid talk… I try to respect and calmly cut 'em off… but they rarely quit.
So yep… we give 'em something to hear back and send them scurrying away.
Since he beleives in God he also beleives in the Devil… and I don’t like people who reinforce the existence of the devil all the time.
Actually, the answer to the question posed by the OP is quite simple.
America, as any school child knows, is “one nation, under God.” Our money states quite clearly, “In God We Trust.” Our National Anthem (albeit in the fourth verse that nobody ever sings) contains the phrase, “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’” Sessions of Congress are begun with a prayer to God. And the list goes one and on.
Sure, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the separation of Church and State (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”), but that just means that the Government can’t tell you which religion to follow. All good Americans are expected to belong to some God-fearing religion (preferably a nice Christian one, although we’re willing to let the Jews and Muslims slide for the time being, on a strictly probationary basis), and anybody who claims to not believe in God therefore not only is un-American, but actually affirmatively rejects everything that makes this country so great and wonderful. In fact, they are very likely terrorists, pedophiles, and/or the sort of persons who would remove the “Do Not Remove This Tag” tags off mattresses without a second thought. In other words, they are bad, bad people who should be treated with disdain, if not outright hostility. So, quit your bitching and go to church like a good boy. And don’t forget to eat your broccolli while your at it. And call your mother – she misses you.
Love,
Barry
Karl Marx never said “religion is the oppiate of the masses”.This is something of an urban legend.Do a google search for Karl Marx + misquoted and you should be able to find a good deal of info on this.
The Ryan, I will say one more thing and then I’ll let it drop. I have harped on many people for not “getting” analogies, and I would be remiss if I let it slide just because it’s not my side of the argument. If you think his analogy implies all those things you said it does, then IMO you are reading way too much into it. We use analogies to demonstrate a specific point; the analogy does not have to be comparable to the instant point in every way.
As for Dogface’s point, I’m not interested in debating that. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “valid”, as that implies that I am taking a position on it. I should have said it’s a coherent point; whether you agree or disagree with his point is of no interest to me. What I’m saying is that I don’t believe he was trying to equate atheists with the KKK, and you do him a disservice by implying otherwise.
Soup’:
I do not know that it matters one iota whether christians, as a whole, become the shining beacons of humility adn happiness that you propose.It will not do anything to convince thinking atheists(or thinking jews adn muslims for that matter) that your proposition is anymore rational.
People who are predisposed to believe things based upon how attractive the ideas are or the people presenting them will be the ONLY kinds of people you will atract to your religion/worldview.
Those of us who doubt the existence of God for purely rational reasons will remain ever doubtful until such time as the claim sounds plausible.