Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

Seriously. Especially their crackers.

 

Sorry to divert from this interesting side topic, but I think I can finally put into words the way these objections by christians make me feel:
The argument made, is that atheists are getting organized, with the purpose of directly combating the church. Where normally atheists are too disorganised to seriously oppose the church, nowadays there are groups with the eloquence and expertise to really make it difficult. Atheist accountants, lawyers, economists, etc. can get together and formulate valid objections to church practices. The church followers don't like this, because they are very slowly seeing their perks and benefits being attacked. They see this as a dangerous development, and are trying to get rid of it.
The overall sentiment is: "How dare atheists work together to oppose us! You should be divided, witless beasts. Do not stand in the way of God's work. We are the light, so if you heathens even lift a finger in defense, you are the enemy."
Comparisons:
- If I fight in a karate match, I'm not going to raise objections when my opponent defends himself.
- Even a criminal in court is allowed to defend himself.
- Actions taken in defense, that delay the course of justice are also within a person's right.
No matter how I look at it, I find these objections to be going a bit far.

The way I think theists often look at atheists, is as vile, despicable and/or immoral. Like a disease, an infestation, or an enemy occupation. Only then can I understand your objections, and then they seem reasonable.
So I think theists need to learn to be less judgemental, less fearful, and more tolerant of atheists. We are your equals, and we're here to stay.

 

That's an interesting post, coin, and it leads me to believe that you've come across some really awful theists.

I have no objection to any* group being organized to spread their point of view around - -that's part of free speech. What I do object to is people who tell lies about what I believe -- now I suppose that they can hide that behind a web if "this is what I believe they believe" and that's free speech, but still, you get my point.

I have met atheists who are just as patronizing, condescending, judgemental, fearful and downright hostile to theists as you have portrayed some theists to be. The fact is, despite the fact that theists believe in something faith based, we too are the equals of the atheists -- and we are here to stay!

So I can get behind your last point -- it would behoove all of us

of all people who do not share our positions

*except for groups espousing violent sedition, of course

 

Extremes in faith, belief and ideals bring out the worst in people

Whether its from intolerance, ignorance or arrogance the results are usually the same anyway, none of us are likely to be proven right or wrong while we all still breathe and type calmly at computers. Yet arguments still array from "KILL THEM IN THE NAME OF X/Y/Z" to "You can believe what you want, as long as you realise you're still wrong."

In reference to coineineagh, not all theists are Christian for one
Your post implies an almost 'fight fire with fire' sentiment. You argue that the church is getting angry that non-believers are grouping together to take away their perks and benefits... um... you don't say? An organisation that has been established for centuries is now being told "The people not in your group don't like what you're doing, so you have to change it." surely the purpose is if you don't like a groups practices you stay away from it?

Only in extremes, and more often than not statements such as this are a reflection. A created reason to feel antipathy for a group - by establishing they feel the same about you. I have heard many more atheists refer to theists as vermin than the other way round, and I used to be involved in the church a lot when I was younger. They never really twigged I wasn't a christian though

Many vocal atheists - as many vocal theists - feel the need to openly flounce their beliefs in the faces of those who disagree. I'm sure you've heard of the most hated family in America after all? I know of extreme Christian groups going to places where condoms are left in the open for people to take as they need (some student places have this in foyers of accomidations) and pushing pins through each one. I have known atheists set fires in a church, or openly commit acts in violation of beliefs in front of believers simply to offend them.

Theists see immorality in atheism simply as there is NO moral code. The law is not a designated moral code - the legal system is designed to protect the community - not provide a personal concsience and morality system to each person. Atheists see most theists as deluded individuals who follow outmoded ways and feel they should 'get with the times' more often than not.

Freedom of religion is considered a basic human right - including how you choose to worship, what you worship and even neglect of worship. I don't see how atheists can decide how religious people should live and I don't see why religious folk should decide how atheists should live.

The main problem stems from how ingrained religion is in society in the basis of the legal system is drawn (in the UK, America and many parts of Europe) from the bible and built upon the basic common agreements from scripture. Church and State should be separate - but that should not give either the right to control the other.

 

...and I've worked very hard to achieve such a notable accomplishment.

This is hilarious:

Persecution complex 101 strikes again (and the Department of Redundancy Department). I think you're simply ignoring that theists have been around longer than atheists have (at least in western society). Theists have typically been the organized and dominant force in every part of the world until recently. That many theists cannot seem to accept atheists as equals has caused an 'opposite and equal reaction.' Before issuing the "persecution ultimatum" perhaps the theists should look in the mirror.

 

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. That's been going on for almost a century. The objection these days is that the atheist organizations are ignoring the law and justice in their attempts. In a slower fashion, they're doing much the same thing that the right wing pundits are doing to politics today. They're (some of them) whipping up a sentiment of anti-religious hate, which is slowly growing and spreading. Many of the young, uninformed atheists I meet today honestly thing anyone who follows a religion can be diagnosed with a mental disorder, or that we're all mentally retarded. Some of them honestly want to kill religious folk, just for following a religion.

Now, I don't know what theists you've come across, or what atheists you hang with, but what I'm talking about is the college crowd I've seen, as well as the bulk of the people on the internet who are vocal about it. This sea of reason and rationality here is the peculiarity, not the norm.

It's like the women's rights movement. You want to vote? Sure. You want to drive? Great! You want to serve in the military? The enemy may get ugly, but ok. You want maternity leave, full pay durring it, equal pay to men, equal promotions even if you don't work for them, and the right to a weekly pedicure? ... Umm, no.

The atheist movement started off just trying to get equal. Then they tried to apply the law to everyone. Now they've got steam and are just trying to push their values onto everyone else.

 

I'm reading a lot of slippery-slope fallacies here. It's almost as if you're trying to say that if action isn't taken now, people will be killed. En masse.
Have you had a look around on internet, for example on YouTube? i've seen people issuing death threats over disagreements about pop songs. They're all emotional outbursts, like we discussed earlier. Are you stating that 'the bulk of the college crowd' actually wants to kill believers? I can imagine they might make you feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, and they may even engage in hostile acts (which I can't approve of). But killing? Don't you think you're overreacting a little?

As for the supposed overdrive in the atheist movement, I doubt this is the case. How do you perceive that atheists have achieved equal status? Is there any way for an atheist organisation to achieve tax-exempt status?

 

Charities

 

No, what you're seeing is a movement who's momentum overcame it's reason. There are similarities, though. The big difference here is that what I'm talking about is history (it happened), as opposed to possibility (it may happen some day, maybe).

Oh, no, not at all. There is a mild risk of that, but I don't think it's serious. Rather, I think the risk is that the legitimate rights of the religious may be infringed in courts before momentum turns.

Yes, they are. The problem is that emotional outbursts like this, when done in person (as opposed to online), often result in real-world violence. That's not just for religious or idealogical debates, that's for any emotional outburst like this. Someone says something stupid, another person takes it stupidly, someone swings a fist, and where it goes from there largely depends on the crowd.

My reference to where I was getting it from was for the whole attitude. Obviously, the 'many of them' statement applies to more of them than the 'some of them' statement. Also, obviously, this only applies to the college atheists, not the college theists or agnostics. They don't usually object to theism (though the theists may similarly object to the atheism).

Sure there is: be a non-profit entity. I'm pretty sure the ACLU has been for a long time (and they're pretty anti-religion, among other things). I think the only advantage religions have in the law (in the US at least) over atheists is Priest-Penitent confidentiality. Good luck forming an equialent of that for atheism.

 

We're not there yet. it's easy to make statements on the internet, and read other people's insulting comments. When you're face to face, it's a different matter entirely. You're no longer shielded by online anonymity, so you're careful about what you say. It is no longer a faceless statement, to be interpreted as you see fit, but a person is making the statement. You can hear their actual intonation, and can extrapolate their motivation and reasoning better. Rabble rousing is a lot more difficult to accomplish in the real world.

 

I have never had a problem accepting atheists as my societal equals. Nor do I have a persecution complex. I have, however, been derided, mocked and more subtly insulted by many atheists. It's not a "persecution" level situation, but when veiled comments from people like "religion served its purpose in society, but now we have evolved away from such illogical stupidity" and such are made willy-nilly, I feel the need to say that despite such condescention(sic) I and others like me are "here to stay".

I don't run into too many of the rabid, vicious, semi-psychotic theists up here in the Great White North that many of you describe, so maybe I'm missing something in this debate.

In other news, in case you all didn't know, I am the Head manager of the Department of Reduncancy department.

 

I'm saving my grand announcement about this topic for thread #500

 

Unfortunately, many people have been face-to-face for many years already. And yes, violence has ensued from time to time.

 

NOG, perhaps it can be said that the internet is detrimental for the tolerance between theists and atheists. It has also contributed to atheists connecting with eachother too. Atheists are seldom driven very strongly to seek out other atheists, not in the way theists gather. But the internet has made this easy and almost effortless.
It's a side effect of the internet age, I guess. If tensions and hostilities do actually get as bad as your doomsday scenario, then all we can hope for, is that governments will achieve a mutually acceptable compromise.
If atheist hostility does become widespread, I have no doubt that theists will respond in kind.

 

Oh, I don't think the internet has been truly detrimental to theist-atheist relations, or to the conversation. I think it's just put more of it into the open. These debates used to be held in classrooms, courtrooms, and the like, and now they're on websites that everyone can visit.

 

OMG! Snook is the POPE!

 

Just caught this one. You know, "making a killing" is a relative term. For five bucks, I can get my 2 Fresco Bean burritos, a drink, rice, and cinnamon twists from Taco Bell. In fact, I'll still have a bit left over. Unlike a charity, Taco Bell pays employees, franchise fees, and taxes, yet it is reasonable to assume that they still turn a profit on my lunch order. If I weren't vegan, I'd be able to pull of the same feat at KFC, too. Food costs will probably come out about even as well, since dried spaghetti and pre-made sauce are pretty damn cheap even without the type of volume discount that franchises like KFC or Taco Bell would get. A church organization of course pays no franchise fees or taxes -- and the people doing the cooking are almost certainly volunteering their time. While $5 a head isn't necessarily making a killing, they are almost certainly making more money per plate than Taco Bell or KFC. If that church is earning less than, say, $4 per plate -- after costs are factored in -- I'll eat my shoe.

That said, I still see no problem with fund raising of this kind.

 

Maybe and maybe not. I've heard concerns about hate groups going online but just as they are there are many non-hate groups that do as well.

I'll disagree there, a lot of people like to hang out with like minded folks. Also my problem wasn't with atheists meeting each other, it was with the bias I found among some and that some people are masquerading as sources of reason when they are deceptive and promote bias/intolerance.

I think NOG went a bit too far here, but historically there isn't any major group that doesn't have at least some blood on its hands. But while the doomsday situation on this hasn't come to pass it isn't impossible for it to as it has already in some places. That said I also doubt it will. I would still want what some people actually are doing to be recognized for what it is.

I wouldn't want religious people to respond in kind, that would be responding to one type of bigotry by joining another-not a good solution IMO. We want the world to be better/more civil than that. Besides that just would feed the "us vs them" problems.

 

side topic...

I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread for this question, or just put it here since it's on-topic. I have a question about something I said, and I'm wondering if I really did go too far. I'll spoiler the story to save space.

Spoiler

Yesterday was the final class of one of my karate teachers (Ali). i was sad to see him leave, as was everyone else. He's going to work in New York for several years.
Last week was the 'official' farewell picnic, and I met one of his foster parents. I was surprised that Ali had been living with a homosexual couple for a year in the past, while still being a practising muslim since he came from Iran when he was 12. It seemed like a great example for tolerance, despite religious differences (you know how the Islam stands towards homosexuals, right?).
During class yesterday, his colleagues from the sports centre mentioned funny anecdotes, where Ali would issue death threats to his colleagues, and these would make it into the annual personnel meetings. Because even the directors knew he made these in jest, it only illustrated that Ali has a reputation as a funny and likeable guy. A joker.
Anyway, we decided to have another picnic in the evening after class, it was great fun. Everyone was drinking, and I had quite a bit to drink as well. I had discussions with the others about all kinds of stuff, we talked about basically everything but religion. We went to a park I rarely go to, so after cleaning up, I asked the guys for directions to exit the park correctly. I got conflicting messages, going in opposite directions. Being slightly intoxicated, I was perhaps inconsiderate, and made a joking remark: "If you're sending me in the wrong direction, then the devil has a special place for you."
Ali was insulted, and replied: "You shouldn't talk to me like that." It really spoiled the mood, since it was the last words he said to me before leaving for the States. I didn't respond to that, I just wished him good luck in New York, said goodbye to everyone (no response), and left.
From my perspective, Ali is being a major hypocrite on multiple levels. To start off, he remains friends with a gay couple, while still practising a religion that sees them as immoral. He's a big joker himself, and no one takes insult whenever he makes a stupid or inconsiderate joke. He even gets away with death threats at personnel meetings. It's probably his stronger personality that lets him get away with this stuff, but that's not the issue here. He chose to take insult, and make me into the bad guy over a joke. A joker that can't handle a joke is a hypocrite, if you ask me.

So what do you guys think? Is joking about killing your colleagues acceptable, but making a joke about the devil isn't? Was it wrong of me to assume people would know I was joking? How is taking insult over a religious joke, any different from a minority incorrectly pulling the racism-card over a good-natured joke?