Zealous Atheists are just as bad as zealous christians

[El_Elvis_Rojo]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**

opposing Christmas decorations on public property,

Violation of the Establishment Clause, again.

**

Where does “separation of Church and State” mean that you can’t put up Christmas decorations at the local A&P? Public places NOT associated with the government still have to put up with this sort of shit. Aslo, what if the building doesn’t promote “one religion over another,” but puts up a little something for all the major holidays of various religions, not just Christianity? I mean, when I lived in New York, I remember seeing a lot of Hanuka decorations up as well as angels and christmas trees.
And also, a lot of Hollidays and decorations aren’t even part of religion nowadays, to be honest. I mean, Halloween and Christmas can both be celebrated as consumer holidays than anything else. Witches and Santa Clause faces don’t have anything to do with the religious significance of the holidays, but more to do with Hershey’s and Coca Cola, yet still, so many schools and shit don’t allow for Halloween celebrations anymore. It’s fucking pathetic.

**
This is why I get angry.

Christian tell big honkin’ lie.

Atheist refutes it with facts.

Christian whines about “Christian-bashing.” **

Also, if the debate is about something like evolution, and scientific facts are brought about, well then hey, that’s one thing. I think what the OP is getting at more is when debates turn to more “How can you believe in a god when there’s science?”
“Because something in me just tells me there’s a god. I believe, and that’s it”
“Well then, you’re an ignorant dumbass.”

That’s not “refuting with fact,” that’s kicking back with just as much personal opinion in what you believe as they are. The OP’s not talking about good ol fashioned conversation and debates about aspects of religion and the like, they’re talking about one person being just as fundamentally thick as another and screaming their heads off in an unconstructive manner. The number of zealous athiests may not be as big as zealous Christians, but when they speak up, they make just as much noise.

[andros]

Bzzzzzt.

Red Elvis, by “public property,” people mean “public property.” The local A&P is private property.

But I agree with the latter portion of your post.

[El_Elvis_Rojo]

andros, I guess you’re right. I don’t know, I tend to think of such places owned by big corporations to be considered “public property” because pretty much anyone can go there unescorted without expressed invitation, but I guess ownership really isn’t all that different that Mom and Pop shops. Thanks.
What about Public Parks? Would that work?

[Mr.Moto]

Gobear, I’ll let fly some facts of my own.

First, there exist people who go way past not believing. They are not non-religious, they are anti religious. Their goal is to remove every last vestige of faith from American life outside of the churches and ensure that as many people are discouraged from attending those churches as possible.

You happen to be one of these people, from what I see. Your participation in the annoying zealous atheist thread is in the role of the annoying zealous atheist.

Your responses in this other thread certainly don’t show any moderation on the subject.

Suffice to say, I don’t see things quite your way. Thank God for that.

[Pythagras]

This is why I get angry.

Christian tell big honkin’ lie.

Atheist refutes it with facts.

Christian whines about “Christian-bashing.”

Your definition of ‘fact’ is based solely on the entimology (sp) of the age. Scientific ‘fact’ changes an does religous ‘fact’ as you move through time and cultures. Consider how little sense it makes for the earth to orbit the sun. Why dont things fly off!?!? Why dont I witness a huge paralax shift looking at the spere of fixed stars? Why can I even validate that what a telescope sees in the heavens is actually there? I mean if I look at someguy across town, I can have my friend there to confirm my observations - but how can I trust the observations of the sun or mars?

If no portion of the world is “rational and comprehensible,” how could you even get out of bed in the morning? Moreover, such a position would fatally challenge any deeply held faith - if one could not trust one’s senses and perceptions, how could one trust one’s beliefs?

Why? I find it spiritually materialistic to have to confirm faith with ‘visions’ and such. That is if the true test is to believe without sensing (faith). And perhaps some of the world is rational/comprehensible while the rest is not. Maybe this whole world is an illusion - a trick to fool our minds. Descartes in his meditations had a hard time methodology to convince himself that he was not dreaming, for certainly when you dream you are often perfectly convinced everything is world.

However, the simple, inescapable reality of life as I look around me is that as a group, atheists are NOT pushing their beliefs on others to 1/1,000,000th the extent religious people do. I mean, they are literally not even on the map. It’s the religious zealots who try to present mythology as science and science as mythology. It’s the religious zealots who look upon others as being lesser citizens. It’s the religious zealots who picket fiunerals shrieking “God hates fags!” It’s the religious zealots who blew up the Twin Towers. Its the religious zealots who circulate Chick Tracts. It was a religious zealot major league ballplayer who told Jewish reporters they were going to hell. It’s the religious zealots who try to burn books I want to read. It’s the religious zealots who want to censor what I can watch and listen to. It’s the religious zealots who murder innocent people in the Middle East. It’s the religious zealots who burn people alive in India over the stupidest of reasons. It’s the religious zealots who, to varying degrees, stay in their own little insular communities and only marry each other and exclude people of other faiths and get angry at their kids if they try to marry outside the faith. We get defenses of that right here on the SDMB. And I’m not just talking about Christians. You can throw your Muslims and your Jews and your Hindus and your Sikhs and whatever else right in there with them.

I’ll be quite upfront and honest with you; the behaviour of religious people, more and more, makes me want to fucking puke. No, not all religious folks are like that - indeed, MOST are not. And yes, I know all these sins can be attributed somewhere along the way to secular interests - atheists try to ban porn because they think they’re feminists, Stalin murdered millions, etc. And I don’t like pushy asshole atheists any more than I like pushy assholes of any stripe, but to my mind the pushy asshole atheist problem just isn’t a significant issue.

This stuff seems to be, if not universally, then STRONGLY correlated with religion - so much so that I just see no reason to complain about athiests as a group. Complaining about pushy atheists when religious zealots are so much larger a problem is like complaining about a mosquito bite while you’re being eaten to death by a Sumatran tiger.

Well the secular equivelant to prostelizing is the credit card company :). Seriously though I find it utterly disgusting that at my school right next to the credit card tables who try to get you to sign up for cards for free stuff are the religous folks. Campus Crusade for Christ, a bunch of morons. I have no respect for anyone’s God who whores themselves out through telemarketing, teleevangelism or getting in my face about their next big event. I personally was raised Anglican, similar to catholicism in many ways. Hence toward most christian religions I am ambivalent and am certainly curious (as I am on most things of religion and philosophy). The (mostly American) variety of proselitizing morons turns me off. Ive always thought that any tenet of christianity is free will, how do these morons suppose to support free will (ie me CHOOSING to follow Christ) by fear bating me, offering me free tshirts and pizza if I come and ‘hang’ with them, getting up in my face as I walk by their booth. My choice to follow Christ is infinitely more valuable and intimate than any coerced conversion.

Now that being said, 80% of the worlds christians arent like that. What really bothers me is when the 80% get painted with the horible moronic things the 20% does, excluding anything valuable the 80% might say. Some of the most interesting things I heard in my life came from my Rector’s sermons. Some of my best friends during HS (many now leaving the church, and feeling perfectly able to do this) I made at that church.

Anyway, I should reject part of my OP. I am forced to concede that christian zealots do more damage than atheist ones, though atheist ones still annoy me out of their ignorance.

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by Mr. Moto *
**Gobear, I’ll let fly some facts of my own.

First, there exist people who go way past not believing. They are not non-religious, they are anti religious. Their goal is to remove every last vestige of faith from American life outside of the churches and ensure that as many people are discouraged from attending those churches as possible.
**

This is not a fact, but a completely unsupported assertation. See, we’ve had that discussion here before. Not one person came forth with evidence of a single organization trying to discourage people from attending church.

In short, gobear was right on the money. You’re responding to facts with outright lies.

[Dinsdale]

Mr. Moto - I participate in a Humanist discussion group, associated with the AHA. Last Wed we were discussing the results of the recent election. I wanted to make sure the discussion stayed away from partisan politics, and instead reflected our shared Humanist values. I asked what Humanist values are most appropriately addressed through legislation and the electoral process. The consensus was that perhaps the most significant one was the separation of church and state. And that this separation was currently being threatened on several fronts.

I’m certainly not trying to convince you of the correctness of this position. Just mentioning to you that a number of relatively educated and intelligent individuals think that such entanglements as you apparently approve of, are a very undesirable thing. Isn’t it interesting that people can differ to such an extent, that one group honestly believes themselves to be acting in a desireable and moral fashion, when the second group sees those very same actions as immoral, judgmental, intolerant, and undesirable. (Note, you can choose to consider believers or non-believers as either group 1 or 2. It works either way.)

Speaking for myself, I simply cannot comprehend why it is insufficient for a believer to celebrate his belief in his mind, his home, and his chosen house of worship. Someone opposing school prayer, or the posting of the Big 10 in courthouses, is not necessarily advocating spreading their personal (non)belief system. Instead, they are opposing the public stamp of approval on any particular belief system. Or have I missed the organized efforts to to have “God is a myth” emblazoned on our flags, coinage, and courthouse walls?

[Polycarp]

Just for the record, there is a small problem with the OP – “zealous” in the sense of enthusiastic or committed is not precisely what you need to be complaining about, but rather “purblind” – as in the sense of “cannot see the point motivating the other person, and insist that they know better than another what that other person ought to say or do.”

And as a devout and zealous Christian who follows Christ’s command to love my fellow man as myself, or tries to anyway, I want to go on record as endorsing gobear’s first post in this thread 100%.

And, as a drive-by stab at a pet peeve of mine:

Can you choose to believe in Santa Clause?

I don’t think you can choose – it’s clearly a real movie, not a particularly good one, although Tim did do a remarkable job of portraying the guy stuck with the job of replacing the Jolly Old Elf. As for belief in the guy, I think highly of the quite real late Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, and do not believe he ended up at 90 North with a staff of elves, raindeer, and related phenomena – besides which, he gained a lot of weight in the last 1900 years if the pictures do him any justice.

Originally posted by Mr Moto
First, there exist people who go way past not believing. They are not non-religious, they are anti religious. Their goal is to remove every last vestige of faith from American life outside of the churches and ensure that as many people are discouraged from attending those churches as possible.

You [gobear] happen to be one of these people, from what I see. Your participation in the annoying zealous atheist thread is in the role of the annoying zealous atheist.

Your responses in this other thread certainly don’t show any moderation on the subject.

Suffice to say, I don’t see things quite your way. Thank God for that.

Such people as your first paragraph describes may well exist. The only real evidence I’ve seen of them, though, is in glurge-spam from right-wing self-professed-as-Christian organizations that seem more interested in preaching hatred of those who don’t agree with how they want to do things than in spreading the Gospel.

As for gobear, I have known him for two years online and eaten dinner with him, and I find him to be a level-headed and thoughtful student of religious writings who has been driven away from Christianity by attitudes like “attacking the Boy Scouts for actually promoting morality” implies – the idea of these bigots being that he cannot be a gay man and still be Christian.

What he’s been saying, and saying eloquently, is that Christians have no right to impose their beliefs by law, regulation, or
other legal means on others who do not share them, nor to require by law that expressions of their belief be underwritten from the public purse to which all, Christian and non-Christian alike, contribute. And that applies whether it’s a sectarian scene of Mary Queen of Heaven or a promo for a Jack VanImpe crusade, or a multicultural multifaith doodad where a cross, a menorah, a replica of the Kaaba, and a Saivite lingam are displayed together. (Especially the last; the League of Decency would be out in full force! :))

Actually, Mr Moto, before you go thanking God for not seeing things as gobear does, you might consider what the Founder of Christianity had to say about it. Particularly in Luke 18:9-14.

[Gatopescado]

What was all that about the Earth orbiting the sun, Pytho? What are you gettin’ at? Do you like Mel Brooks, or maybe work for him?

---

RealLife SoundBite: “Axl Rose? Who the hell is that fat, old queen?”

[gobear]

See, if more Christians were like Polycarp, who does his best to live a life devoted to following Jesus, I wouldn’t have a word to say against Christians as a whole. Living a life of tolerance, peace, and goodwill is admirable, no matter one’s philosophical outlook.

But, sadly, the Mr. Motos of the world fill the churches and set the Christian agenda. They tell lies in the name of a God of truth and preach hate in the name of a God of love.

[wolfman]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
**
This is not a fact, but a completely unsupported assertation. See, we’ve had that discussion here before. Not one person came forth with evidence of a single organization trying to discourage people from attending church.

In short, gobear was right on the money. You’re responding to facts with outright lies. **

Nice rationalality. ‘Unsupported assertation’ becomes ‘outright lies’ in 3 sentences. Here’s a principal of science for ya ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Because you are not aware of the evidence doesn’t mean the person is wrong, let alone lying.

For the record, I know there are people who are actively discourageing christianity from a position of power. I have seen this with my own eyes. But you are showing the closed-mindedness described in the OP by assuing that becuase you are not aware of it, anybody who is aware of it is a liar.

As for my evidence, it is not the type that can be minked to on a message board. It is a situation from real life with no corroboration I can find anymore. Now a ahead, call me a liar, prove your close mindedness.

[kaylasdad99]

*Originally posted by Pythagras *
**

Your definition of ‘fact’ is based solely on the entimology (sp) of the age.**

Are you asking for assistance in spelling the word, or are you merely acknowledging that you may have misspelled it? Because, if the former, I’ll be happy to help you out, if you’ll provide me with some guidance.

What is the word supposed to mean? I’m going out on a limb and assuming it has nothing to do with the study of insects.

Until such time as you give a defintion or at least a descriptioin of the concept you’re trying to convey in this sentence, consider these suggestions*:

1. Expoobidence.

2. Embiggens.

3. Cromulent.

*[sub]Properly spelled, all of them[/sub]

[photopat]

Wolfman, I don’t think you’re a liar, but you seem to have mixed up to concepts. Beelzebubba said: "Not one person came forth with evidence of a single organization trying to discourage people from attending church."

You said: "I know there are people who are actively discourageing christianity from a position of power."

Those are two different things. There may very well be people trying to keep christians out of positions of power. If you’re talking about business or government or any organization that isn’t specifically affiliated with a different religion, that’s wrong. Just because a person is christian is no more reason to keep that person from a job than skin color. I’d like to hear your story.

On the other hand, I’ve never personally witnessed anybody physically barring people from entering a church, nor have I experienced people trying to “save” others from christianity.

Beelzebubba did, I think, get carried away in that post.

[armedmonkey]

I can think of an organization that discourages people from going to church, but this first.

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
**lets put it like this. You don’t see Rabid Athiests blowing up Maternity Wards or shooting paediatricians. **

Fuckin’ A, not this ill thought out, bullshit, “atheists are more moral” argument again. You show your ignorance twist. Ever hear of a little place in the world called China?

Beijing’s first “Strike Hard” campaign this year in April 2001 resulted in 200 executions and the detention of 10,000 suspects. The second assault this year, announced after September 11th, according to campaigners, looks set to be buried under the cloak of global condemnation of terrorism, giving Beijing carte blanche to clamp down on anyone it deems to have “terrorist” leanings. The word “terrorism” is used as a smokescreen to include any kind of opposition to its rule, according to Tuerdi.

<snip>

Although nominally Muslim, historically the people of East Turkestan have been variously Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Shaman. Draconian laws imposed by the Communists have meant that for 52 years no child under 18 has been allowed to explore their own religious heritage, or freely practise any faith. Because atheism is taught in schools, Uyghurs tend to learn piecemeal from elders, many of whom themselves are untrained

No violence there.

Look, I don’t care what your beliefs are, just don’t claim your worldview is more “moral”. It’s a bullshit argument and shows nothing but your ignorance, stupidity, and false sense of superiority.

Beezlebubba, can you guess the organization that prevents people from going to church?

[gobear]

Oh, puh-leeze, Beeblebrox
A. We’re talking about America, not China.

B. The Chinese government is seeking to maintain its power, which entails cracking down on religions, and in the Uighurs case, radical Islam. It’s a dictatorship thats represses religion for its own ends, not to advance the standard of atheism.

C. Ok, you got me–what organization in the US prevents people from going to church?

[armedmonkey]

When did we narrow it down to just the US? Did I miss a memo?

[Eonwe]

*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 *
Are you asking for assistance in spelling the word, or are you merely acknowledging that you may have misspelled it? Because, if the former, I’ll be happy to help you out, if you’ll provide me with some guidance.

Maybe I’m being wooshed, but the word he was looking for is etymology. Word origin.

Carry on.

[Eonwe]

Oh, and gobear’s point B is quite valid. Beeblebrox, it’s not about “which is the more moral worldview,” it’s about whether violence/oppression/what have you,in the name of faith (or athiesm), happens with any amount of frequency.

[armedmonkey]

Whatever. We’ve done this dance before. There’s a Christian/Atheist/Pagan firestorm in the pit about every 6 months. It’s as pedictable as el nino. Nothing ever gets accomplished in these things and all it ever does is piss the less even-keel of us off. So I’m done with the whole religous debate this time around - been there and done that too many times. Everything I had to say I said on the first page of the other thread anyway. I’m going to go take a nap now*, wake me up when the “SUV’s are bad!” thing starts up again.
*actually I’m leaving the office to go drink beer and eat sushi, but that’s neither here nor there

[Cervaise]

I am an atheist.

The only time I discuss it openly is on these boards.

In real life, the only person who knows I’m an atheist is my wife. I don’t talk about it with anyone else. Not my friends, not my co-workers, not my family. Nobody.

Because I know what a shitstorm it would provoke.

Under those circumstances, given that a Christian is free to leave his Bible on his desk and wear a cross around his neck but I would never dream of putting up a “God is a metaphor” poster in my cube, and given the frequency with which Darwin fish are violently pried off the backs of vehicles by zealots of faith, I cannot reasonably accept the proposition that atheists are somehow able to oppress and persecute Christians.

The OP is full of shit. And Mr. Moto, you, sir, are an assgasket.