How should Atheists and Religous people treat each other? [Archive]

JU_88

10-22-12, 04:03 AM

Im agnostic, I dont think anyone truley knows who/what put us here, and I think those that claim they do are being a being a touch too big for their boots (sorry), to me all religion and science can really offer is theory.

One solution would be learn how to put our belives aside for 5 seconds for the sake of objectivity, but since we are pretty hopeless at doing this, we should maybe just learn to shut up more, mind our own business, grow a thicker skin and just enjoy what makes us happy instead. And that means without needing to try and force it on others while at the same time; not howl "Im offended" like an over sensitive sissy mary -when confronted with the beliefs of others.
Are these people just emotionally insecure or what? :hmmm:

From where Im standing, I see buildings, trees, vehicles and day to day human life, although that in itself it quite complex, its something I can just about understand most of the time. Zoom out a bit and Im an insignificant spec on a vast rotating ball of minerals orbiting an even vaster ball of gass and fire in a seemingly infinate black vacum - Right then, Im not even going to BOTHER to try and fully understand/explain that - as its clearly too big for my primative level of human comprehention, and quite frankly I dont really need to understand it in order to lead a happy prosperous life, do I?
Wake me up when we have craft that can travel to the edge of the universe or when Jesus comes back, until then Im simply not interested in 'instant faith, just add water' based on some ancient dead guy(s) diary or therorectical maths based jargon that proves it self wrong every other decade.
And if you think im ignorant or ill informed, thats fine because I really dont care, Im pretty content with who and what I am and to me, thats all that matters.

Skybird

10-22-12, 05:44 AM

How should Atheists and Religous people treat each other?
In such a manner that the principle of state's and society's secularism stays guaranteed and the public space and state's institutions as well as public education structures stay neutral and non-influenced by religious sects' ideologies. If believers and non-believers would stay away from wanting to missionize the other, and relgious people would not try to turn society into a non-secular culture, then there would be no targets and victims of such missionizing efforts and thus there would be nobody needing to defend himself against an ideologically motivated aggression. Where there is no attack, there is no need to defend. But this only on the basis of secularism and freedom first, religion second, please.

Keep thy religion to thyself. Keep society free of it. Spare others from needing to always take note of what precious idols you have chosen to take for real - it'S your idols and your choice, not theirs, so why would you expect them to care for your stuff? Staying passive, so that society can be an open place for everybody to be in. What colours you paint your flat's walls in, is nothing strangers usually take interest in. And why should they? Your flat is not that important, you know.

Its good to recall this old law from physics: every action has reaction. So keep your radio silent enough that not all the neighbourhood needs to listen to your sound. Play your radio loud, and don't be surprised if neighbours turn against you.
They want to listen to their own radios maybe, you know, without being disturbed by your noise. And you are no disc-jockey for the district.

You want to tell others of your precious beliefs, theistic or atheistic? Then wait until you get asked and then answer to their questions. That's diplomatic, and good style. Missionizing is not diplomatic. It's an aggression.

In case of conflict arising: decide on basis of freedom goes first, religion only second. Always.

Sammi79

10-22-12, 05:44 AM

As they would expect to be treated themselves.

That includes respect if one is being respectful.

It also includes ridicule if one is being ridiculous.

Regards, Sam.

Garion

10-22-12, 06:27 AM

People can believe in whatever they want as long as they do not hurt others , or pass secular laws based on their particular beliefs.

Respect is earned, not bestowed.

Cheers

Gary

Sammi79

10-22-12, 06:31 AM

Respect is earned, not bestowed.

So is ridicule. :O:

Dowly

10-22-12, 06:54 AM

^ This is true. :O:

Herr-Berbunch

10-22-12, 07:40 AM

I think the last handful of replies are spot on. :up:

CaptainHaplo

10-22-12, 08:12 AM

I think a person's religiousity - or lack thereof - should not be a basis of how you treat them at all.

Religious views - or the choice to not have any - is a personal one. While theologians argue of the Great Commission and its meaning, the reality is that people share their views on religion, pro or con, way too dang much. Personal religious views should be, generally speaking, kept personal.

For Christians, that means live a life that shows the world something is different - people will notice, inquire and then you can share your views - because they ASKED. Don't shout your views and expect everyone to conform.

For Atheists, that means live your life as you see fit, but don't shout your views and expect everyone to conform either.

If people did this - the battle between Christianity and Athiesm wouldn't be what it is today.

With that said - why is it the Athiests never go after other religions that seek to force their way into society? Like mosque's blasting calls to prayer from the town square here in the US? They are strangely silent on that - but if your city calls something a Christmas Parade, it is likely to be sued.

Just something I have wondered.....

Geno_Mariner

10-22-12, 08:12 AM

Everybody should treat eachother with respect. And keep their religious belief to themselves, not shove it down another person's throat (unfortunately my parents seem not to understand this...). Former Christian, most likely more of a Deist or some other fancy words now. I get along with my friends who are somewhat into wicca and other things because they don't talk about it unless I ask, and vice versa.

I agree with Skybird that people should wait til they're asked about their beliefs.
Put aside the differences and try to get along. Don't have anything better to say since everybody else's got pretty good points about this subject :hmmm:

August

10-22-12, 09:17 AM

So is ridicule. :O:

You don't have to earn it to be ridiculed. All you have to do is have a belief that another doesn't share. Peoples religious beliefs are mocked all the time, even in this forum.

JU_88

10-22-12, 09:43 AM

With that said - why is it the Athiests never go after other religions that seek to force their way into society? Like mosque's blasting calls to prayer from the town square here in the US? They are strangely silent on that - but if your city calls something a Christmas Parade, it is likely to be sued.

Just something I have wondered.....

A combination of westen political correctness and cowardess I expect, if they went after Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs they would be seen as intolerent monsters picking on a minority. But if they pick on Christians it 'ok' apparently :doh: I am no fan of christianity particularly, but I know an injustice when I see one.
Relegion bashing Atheists always go after Christians first because its least contraversial target, which is total crap.
I especially loathe these whining atheists, pretending to be offended by christian traditions (like a christmas parade) when they know damn well they live in country with a christian herritage.
They are not really 'offended' i dont belive it for 1 second. they are just being a-holes, maybe they want attention or maybe they just get a kick out trashing someone elses enjoyment and stiring the pot, Ditto for Muslims, jews or anyone who claim to 'offended' by such things. petty hysterical rubbish if you ask me, if the local festivities offend you, then you are the problem and its time for you to move.

Skybird

10-22-12, 09:48 AM

Peoples religious beliefs are mocked all the time, even in this forum.

Yes indeed, and right so: when they go peddling with it, and claim respect and a special status for it without it deserving that, and want beliefs and personal fantasies being seen as equal to reason, empiry, and scientific theory.

You forget to mention that in your country, not this forum only, atheists in return in some states get actively discriminated, socially mobbed, and excluded by states's constitutions from public offices although federal constitution forbids this.

How dare they defending themselves against this, and give themselves a voice! How intolerant and religion-hostile of them! Do these god-less haters know nothing than provocation and offence?

:hmmm:

It's easy to get along peacefully with people like me. Push me, and I push back. Push me more, and I push back more. Smile at my direction, and I smile back. But religious people sometimes expect people like me to just fall back when being pushed, and to allow having our freedom and space reduced for the benefit of religion's freedom. That'S when people like me start to grind the war-axe and let the steel swing freely.

Because freedom is more valuable and precious, than religion's claims for things and status it does not deserve and has never earned nor justified by test and verification. Better then to keep your religion where it belongs: inside your heart, inside your mind, and in the realm of your home. Do no harm against others, help the weak, practice a little love in your life while leaving others their freedom and dignity - that is religion practiced best. Needs no ceremony, no temple, and no scripture, you can have it with you where ever you are, even when you are skin naked . And best of it: it turns yourself into a better being.

Where religious doctrine goes public, it is no longer "spiritual", but political. Where it claims special respect, it sows its own intolerance. Where it missionises its "truths" , it wants control and dominance.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 10:02 AM

Yes indeed, and right so: when they go peddling with it, and claim respect and a special status for it without it deserving that, and want beliefs and personal fantasies being seen as equal to reason, empiry, and scientific theory.

I have never seen anyone proselytise on this forum. What I have seen are angry atheists attacking those that believe. You demand radio silence from believers while your's is always blasting at 11. Hypocrisy much?

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 10:06 AM

These go to 11...

http://livingincinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/these-go-to-eleven-2.jpg

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 10:15 AM

I'm glad that somebody caught that reference. Makes me smile. :D

Skybird

10-22-12, 10:23 AM

I have never seen anyone proselytise on this forum. What I have seen are angry atheists attacking those that believe. You demand radio silence from believers while your's is always blasting at 11. Hypocrisy much?

No hypocrisy, but bias - yours.

You sure you do not become tired of stalking on me? It surely has become a habit of yours recently.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 10:26 AM

No hypocrisy, but bias - yours.

You sure you do not become tired of stalking on me? It surely has become a habit of yours recently.

Oh, see now here we go. You go around this forum attacking all kinds of people personally simply because they have a belief. A harmless belief. A belief that they are in no way attempting to sell to you. You call them ignorant, foolish, dangerous, witless, etc. I call you out on it and suddenly I am stalking you. Hypocricy and butthurt: A winning combination.

Your radio's still too loud. Turn it down.

Hottentot

10-22-12, 10:32 AM

*Hottentot looks bemusedly at the thread's latest posts*

:hmm2:

*Hottentot looks at the super secret semi official AARs-to-do-list*

:-?

*Furious sounds of eraser and pencil abusing a poor A4.*

Hehehehee...:88)

*More furious sounds of eraser and pencil abusing a poor A4.*

:smug:

*Hottentot scurries away rubbing hands together*

:arrgh!:

Jimbuna

10-22-12, 10:35 AM

I simply can't believe there are two votes in favour of the second poll option :hmm2:

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 10:36 AM

I simply can't believe there are two votes in favour of the second poll option :hmm2:

Probably some trololoing going on there.

Tribesman

10-22-12, 10:37 AM

I simply can't believe there are two votes in favour of the second poll option
Since there are only two I shall take a stand for the minority opinion and add a vote

Herr-Berbunch

10-22-12, 10:41 AM

Since there are only two I shall take a stand for the minority opinion and add a vote

Ah, Mr Tribesman, we've been expecting you! :03:

Tribesman

10-22-12, 10:54 AM

Ah, Mr Tribesman, we've been expecting you!
Well the fictional war on christmas getting a mention was as big an invite as a full page Daily Mail headline on immigrants
There hasn't been a war on christmas since the puritans went a little power crazy before buggering off to the colonies.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 10:58 AM

Well the fictional war on christmas getting a mention was as big an invite as a full page Daily Mail headline on immigrants
There hasn't been a war on christmas since the puritans went a little power crazy before buggering off to the colonies.

Who was talking about that? I am saying that there is a clear and unwarranted hostility by our resident atheists towards our resident believers on SubSim. Even I have been targeted for defending my belief, despite the fact that I do not believe that my personal religious views should be legislated and forced upon others. It seems that, for some, the very existence of those who have different beliefs is offensive.

Buddahaid

10-22-12, 10:59 AM

I have never seen anyone proselytise on this forum. What I have seen are angry atheists attacking those that believe. You demand radio silence from believers while your's is always blasting at 11. Hypocrisy much?

I actually don't care for either side but from my seat I usually see the Christian's are the ones that can't live and let live. Oh sure they can after they get a few more laws passed that demand Atheists behave as Christians in public, and private. I only see Atheists demanding changes to take overt Christian symbolism and such out of the common governance.

Being an Atheist does not mean one is amoral. Our basic laws are formed from Old Testament teachings and these are more than simply Christian values so it becomes a gray area about drawing lines in the sand.

mookiemookie

10-22-12, 11:00 AM

Who was talking about that? I am saying that there is a clear and unwarranted hostility by our resident atheists towards our resident believers on SubSim. Even I have been targeted for defending my belief, despite the fact that I do not believe that my personal religious views should be legislated and forced upon others. It seems that, for some, the very existence of those who have different beliefs is offensive.

I believe he was referencing Haplo's post.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 11:06 AM

I actually don't care for either side but from my seat I usually see the Christian's are the ones that can't live and let live. Oh sure they can after they get a few more laws passed that demand Atheists behave as Christians in public, and private. I only see Atheists demanding changes to take overt Christian symbolism and such out of the common governance.

I have yet to see a single Christian do so on this forum. What I do see are lots of atheist with lots of angry words for members that believe. Personally, I grow very weary of being called an ignoramus by such people. Maybe if we can talk about the idea without attempting to destroy the person (like we're supposed to behave on SubSim) it would be a good thing for everyone.

I believe he was referencing Haplo's post.

Ah, okay. Sorry about that. :up:

Jimbuna

10-22-12, 11:09 AM

I have yet to see a single Christian do so on this forum. What I do see are lots of atheist with lots of angry words for members that believe. Personally, I grow very weary of being called an ignoramus by such people. Maybe if we can talk about the idea without attempting to destroy the person (like we're supposed to behave on SubSim) it would be a good thing for everyone.

You may be asking a bit much there....even on GT :)

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 11:11 AM

You may be asking a bit much there....even on GT :)

You're probably right. :haha:

Tribesman

10-22-12, 11:14 AM

I believe he was referencing Haplo's post.

If I wanted to have more fun with that I would add that perhaps the atheists can't protest about the mosques as there are too many "christians" forming a crowd to protest so they can't get through.

It seems that, for some, the very existence of those who have different beliefs is offensive.
Unfortunately and to put a sidespin on the topic it is often religious people clashing with other religious people just as it always has been since before that bloke got nailed to a bit of wood for saying "be nice".

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 11:39 AM

Our basic laws are formed from Old Testament teachings and these are more than simply Christian values so it becomes a gray area about drawing lines in the sand.
Actually the first code of civil law far predates the Bible, even the Old Testament. Also, the laws in the OT have very little to do with modern civil law. Putting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall doesn't make them relevant to anything other than religious belief.

Sammi79

10-22-12, 12:03 PM

If people did this - the battle between Christianity and Athiesm wouldn't be what it is today.

I don't see any battle going on between christianity and atheism. If there is it is certainly a 2 way street. I see a general skirmish going on with people trying to defend themselves and their children from religion attempting to wedge itself into places it doesn't belong, like education, politics and law. (note religion, all inclusive) some religions are worse in this respect than others, but they all (at least the Abrahamic ones) do it to some degree or other.

You don't have to earn it to be ridiculed. All you have to do is have a belief that another doesn't share. Peoples religious beliefs are mocked all the time, even in this forum.

As are atheist views. The stories I hear about your land of the free, (about which I keep an open mind and do not trust generally) are chilling. Atheists discriminated against in employment, atheists scared to admit their lack of faith for fear of physical reprisal, etc. We're all angry loud mouths according to this thread* because we dare to question someone elses faith when it is presented to us. How very dare we indeed. Sticks and stones anyone? Maybe I should delineate between ridicule that someone does for immature childish laughs and genuine ridicule that is an involuntary reaction to ridiculous behaviour.

*case in point:
I have never seen anyone proselytise on this forum. What I have seen are angry atheists attacking those that believe. You demand radio silence from believers while your's is always blasting at 11. Hypocrisy much?

Sorry Takeda. I know and have seen what you say happening, and I do not approve. However, 1 sided this is not. I defend your right to say it, but I can still see how some might consider that description of atheist members here offensive. From my point of view? sticks and stones. I for one am glad to hear these opinions.

Buddahaid

10-22-12, 12:26 PM

Actually the first code of civil law far predates the Bible, even the Old Testament. Also, the laws in the OT have very little to do with modern civil law. Putting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall doesn't make them relevant to anything other than religious belief.

I didn't know obviously. The Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall are perhaps irrelevant, but to an Atheist required to swear on a Bible to testify, they are a sign of biased governance.

Garion

10-22-12, 02:02 PM

August

10-22-12, 02:12 PM

As are atheist views. The stories I hear about your land of the free, (about which I keep an open mind and do not trust generally) are chilling. Atheists discriminated against in employment, atheists scared to admit their lack of faith for fear of physical reprisal, etc. We're all angry loud mouths according to this thread* because we dare to question someone elses faith when it is presented to us. How very dare we indeed. Sticks and stones anyone? Maybe I should delineate between ridicule that someone does for immature childish laughs and genuine ridicule that is an involuntary reaction to ridiculous behaviour.

I don't know where you're getting your information from Sammi but FYI:

In this country it is illegal to discriminate for employment based on a persons religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is illegal to threaten or attack a person for any reason including religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I'm not going to say it never happens. After all in a country of 300 million people you can find examples of just about any behavior good or bad, but it is not very common and is not at all tolerated by the mainstream.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 02:20 PM

As are atheist views. The stories I hear about your land of the free, (about which I keep an open mind and do not trust generally) are chilling. Atheists discriminated against in employment, atheists scared to admit their lack of faith for fear of physical reprisal, etc. We're all angry loud mouths according to this thread* because we dare to question someone elses faith when it is presented to us. How very dare we indeed. Sticks and stones anyone? Maybe I should delineate between ridicule that someone does for immature childish laughs and genuine ridicule that is an involuntary reaction to ridiculous behaviour.

I don't know where you got this impression from. In my years, of which there are getting to be many, I have not witnessed anyone discriminating against any Atheists or one that participates in a religious belief specifically concerning employment. In fact, religious affiliation or not is generally never in question unless you are going for a job in clergy!

There is an old saying, "If you want to stay friends do not talk about religion and politics." This old saying rings true today.

Dowly

10-22-12, 02:23 PM

I don't know where you're getting your information from Sammi but FYI:

In this country it is illegal to discriminate for employment based on a persons religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is illegal to threaten or attack a person for any reason including religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I'm not going to say it never happens. After all in a country of 300 million people you can find examples of just about any behavior good or bad, but it is not very common and is not at all tolerated by the mainstream.

I have, too, heard about the issue Sammi brought up. :hmmm:

The Wiki article highlights some of the things (grain of salt may or may not be in order):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

Skybird

10-22-12, 02:28 PM

I simply can't believe there are two votes in favour of the second poll option :hmm2:
I have not even voted at all, so do not look at me. ;)

Dowly

10-22-12, 02:29 PM

I have not even voted at all, so do not look at me. ;)

Me neither.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 02:33 PM

I have, too, heard about the issue Sammi brought up. :hmmm:

The Wiki article highlights some of the things (grain of salt may or may not be in order):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

I have not heard directly of discrimination of atheists in any capacity. I have heard a few snoring in the pew on Sunday morning as their significant other enjoys a morning at church. :haha: I can not say I have read it in the news either for that matter. Religious beliefs, concerning obtaining a job, does not come into conversation/questioning, nor are the interviewers allowed to ask I believe. I think religious affiliation ranks up there with sexual orientation questions. It is not questioned at a job interview. But, I'm sure there is a instance somewhere. Wide spread I would not believe.

Tribesman

10-22-12, 02:37 PM

In fact, religious affiliation or not is generally never in question unless you are going for a job in clergy!

How many people questioned your presidents religion and how many claimed that a muslim couldn't hold the office?
Then again they used to say the same about the "wrong" flavours of christianity too.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 02:41 PM

How many people questioned your presidents religion and how many claimed that a muslim couldn't hold the office?
Then again they used to say the same about the "wrong" flavours of christianity too.

Simply look at questioning the President on religion as a scare tactic. The same questions the Mormon is getting. My applications do not have a box to check on religious affiliation or not. Nor was I ever asked about it at a job interview.

PS: neither(BO or MR) stated they were atheist. This is the concern and questioning from Dowly.

mookiemookie

10-22-12, 02:55 PM

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...

Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....

Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm

I certainly believe that there's a societal view that atheists are evil or immoral, especially in places like the deep south.

I don't know if you can prove that there's employment discrimination against atheists though. No job interview I've ever been in has asked about religion, and I'm not sure where that topic would come up in any sort of job interview. But then again, there's no way to prove that it's not a factor in some situations where the job candidate's religious preferences are known. It's easy to not hire someone because they're atheist and say you didn't hire them because someone else was more qualified.

I don't talk about my religious beliefs so I don't care one way or another.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 02:59 PM

I certainly believe that there's a societal view that atheists are evil or immoral, especially in places like the deep south.

They are not fond of black people either from what I hear. Find me anyone that does not have some sort of experience of discrimination. Everyone stinks in some manner to someone else.

But, yes, religious affiliation for the ice cream counter person position does not come into play. No one has asked me what church I attend except in general conversation. I have experienced this I believe once. I was from my mother in law when I first dated her daughter.

Please, no charts. :O:

Tribesman

10-22-12, 03:04 PM

(grain of salt may or may not be in order):
The links to the constitutions requiring a belief in god as a requirement for office in those states seem up to date.

Simply look at questioning the President on religion as a scare tactic.

You mean people can be scared into not giving someone a job because of their religion or lack of?
That kind of reinforces the point Sammi made doesn't it.
After all do scare stories about the "wrong" religion run parallel to scare stories about the dirty heathens

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 03:07 PM

You mean people can be scared into not giving someone a job because of their religion or lack of?

No, scared into voting or not. I was not voted into my job. The job application for President does not state one requires a church affiliation that I'm aware of. In fact, I don't believe there is a formal written application to fill out. However, the wonderful media has a story if candidate A bows to Mecca daily. The position of President presents a different set of issues than the common person applying for the job as dishwasher does not face. None of my experiences affirms Sammis beliefs or findings. I'm not saying it has not happened but I don't believe it is a widespread issue concerning landing a job.

Armistead

10-22-12, 03:08 PM

I am more agnostic on the issue. I don't believe in compulsory love or submitting because of the ultimate fear of being tortured for all eternity.

I find most religions more in line with the beliefs of man, creating tools to control the masses with guilt and fear. It's clear our nation remains in a fight of those wanting to control others with religious morals against those who would "live and let live". Most studies show that secular countries are more peaceful, wealthier and healthier.

I have no problem if you believe God tells you to do something, it's when you say God told you to tell me to do something that I have issue.

yubba

10-22-12, 03:09 PM

Atheists are so much fun to watch around Christmas time,,:doh::doh::doh:hence my saying,, staggerring around like an atheists on Christmas Day..

Dowly

10-22-12, 03:09 PM

The links to the constitutions requiring a belief in god as a requirement for office in those states seem up to date.

Yea, but the article mentions that they arent enforced these days. :yep:

Jimbuna

10-22-12, 03:10 PM

I have not even voted at all, so do not look at me. ;)

Me neither.

As if I would even consider thinking such a thing :o

Twas probably (insert name here) the usual culprit :hmm2:

Tribesman

10-22-12, 03:13 PM

I was not voted into my job.
Of course you were, the HR dept or the interview panel gave you the yay or nay when they voted on your application, unless of course you are self employed in which case you are still voted into your job but by a different set of people called customers.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 03:16 PM

I don't have a problem with atheists. I know lots of them; they're nice people. When I am told how stupid I am for not being an atheist, then we have a problem.

I would agree that there is a perception among Christians that atheists are somehow more prone to immorality than believers. I also have a problem with Christians that imply that atheists cannot raise happy, well adjusted and successful children in a purely secular household. I've met enough pacifists who were also atheists to realize that religion does not hold a monopoly on 'thou shalt not kill'.

I also don't think that my theological beliefs should be legislated. The god of my religion may not be the god of your religion, or you may have no religion. We either have a seperation of church and state or we don't. Too many of my fellow Christians want government to leave their religion alone, but then want their religion to tell government what to do. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

So if I want to say that abortion is morally wrong, that is my right. It does not infringe upon the rights of others. Once I push for legislation to effectively make a woman's uterus government property, I am infringing on rights. If I say that homosexuality is sinful, that is my right. If I support legislation barring homosexuals from enjoying the same rights and recognition that I enjoy, I infringe upon the rights of others.

I can have my religion. I can practice my religion. But I cannot force others to practice it.

GoldenRivet

10-22-12, 03:19 PM

i say take all the religious folks from the various religions, and take all the athiests and lock them in a big arena with automatic weapons, knives, sharp sticks and rocks.

last man standing wins.

then we kill the last one standing.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 03:20 PM

Of course you were, the HR dept or the interview panel gave you the yay or nay when they voted on your application, unless of course you are self employed in which case you are still voted into your job but by a different set of people called customers.

No, I was not. This includes several of my jobs. There was no voting. My hiring was based on ability, education, experience and of course my good looks.

BTW, your voting definition or twist on words really sucks. :down: I don't mind telling you. Voted into my job by customers...sheesh. :shifty: I guess I'm a customer to Obama under that logic? Last time I checked and sent in my weekly tax collection I was a citizen.

mookiemookie

10-22-12, 03:20 PM

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 03:21 PM

I didn't know obviously. The Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall are perhaps irrelevant, but to an Atheist required to swear on a Bible to testify, they are a sign of biased governance.

Well to be fair, when I was a Police Officer giving evidence in court I was always given the choice of swearing on the bible or Affirming... I always affirmed.
That's good to know. When I was a devout Christian I was opposed to swearing on the Bible, or any other system. For me it went directly against the injunction of Jesus in Matthew 5:33-37:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

August

10-22-12, 03:23 PM

So if I want to say that abortion is morally wrong, that is my right. It does not infringe upon the rights of others. Once I push for legislation to effectively make a woman's uterus government property, I am infringing on rights. If I say that homosexuality is sinful, that is my right. If I support legislation barring homosexuals from enjoying the same rights and recognition that I enjoy, I infringe upon the rights of others.

I can have my religion. I can practice my religion. But I cannot force others to practice it.

Just remember Takeda, opposition to abortion does not have to be based on religion. Some people feel that a fetus is a human being without a priest or rabbi to tell them.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 03:24 PM

well, there it is.

/thread

I would substantiate and concur. :up:

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 03:25 PM

Just remember Takeda, opposition to abortion does not have to be based on religion. Some people feel that a fetus is a human being without a priest or rabbi to tell them.

And then there is this twist!!! :timeout:

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 03:25 PM

Atheists are so much fun to watch around Christmas time,,:doh::doh::doh:hence my saying,, staggerring around like an atheists on Christmas Day..
Christmas: the season in which 90% of all people proclaim their fealty to Santa Claus.

Yubba, do you really believe in God, or like so many others do you just give 'lip service' when it suits you? I've never seen you do anything but run down Liberals. You don't seem to actually believe in anything but trashing the 'other side'.

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 03:32 PM

Christmas: the season in which 90% of all people proclaim their fealty to Santa Claus.

90% How was this figure obtain? :hmmm:

By and large, many proclaim faith in Santa I believe. But then there are the C and E people. These folks arrive to church on Christmas and Easter, looking oddly out of place and very uncomfortable.

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 03:36 PM

90% How was this figure obtain? :hmmm:
It wasn't. It was a joke, with some apparent truth behind it.

I've known a great many people who went to church their whole lives and never believed. I have known many who do believe, and spend their spare time studying the Bible and not much else. Most of the world, as you point out, will say they believe, but never seem to show it, only attending church on special occasions and spending most of their time ignoring the attending rules and commandments.

I no longer believe, and yet I don't truly disbelieve, claiming only that I don't know. Being honest, this leads me to wonder whether I truly believed when I claimed to, the only real evidence for belief, as Jesus said, is your actions and deeds. So, while I can't see into anyone else's heart it looks to me like if someone doesn't actively live the Christian life then it can be safely said that they only give lip service.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 03:38 PM

Just remember Takeda, opposition to abortion does not have to be based on religion. Some people feel that a fetus is a human being without a priest or rabbi to tell them.

Yes, I think that's a good point also. I think that the overwhelming majority of abortion opposition is faith-based. I don't have the statistics, so I could be wrong.

Skybird

10-22-12, 03:40 PM

Oh, see now here we go. You go around this forum attacking all kinds of people personally simply because they have a belief. A harmless belief. A belief that they are in no way attempting to sell to you. You call them ignorant, foolish, dangerous, witless, etc. I call you out on it and suddenly I am stalking you. Hypocricy and butthurt: A winning combination.

Your radio's still too loud. Turn it down.
For you religious guys every opposition to you wanting to have your ways, unobstructed, is "too loud". You want more space, and at the cost of others not sharing your claims: you nevertheless demand them to give room to you, and accepting less for themselves. In other words: double standards regarding freedom: freedom for you, and those not agreeing are expected to fall back and shut up and accept their freedom being cut.

Sorry, not with people like me.

So according to you I go around and attack people. Ah yes. That implies I actively engage and go on the offensive. Well, problem with religious zealots and hypocrites - I mean people like you, if you have not noted it - is that they measure with double standards.

Let'S have a reality check on my active creation of opportunities to raid others and land a score by sniping at their religion.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=2

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=3

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=4

I ended the record at the beginning of this year.

If that proves anything, than not that I am going around and go after religious people. But I certainly - and have said that many times - react to other people raising religious issues in threads. I recommended to not do so and leave that kind of stuff out of this forum. Many times. I agree that I am a regular participant in such talks that get created by others. But that does not prove I am after my chances to victimize poor religion where I can. It only proves how often religious topics and opinions get brought up by others - and you and other believing people here expecting people like me to stay put and fall silent and not opposing these views and hide our own even if we see religious views corrupting scientific terms and concepts, or politics, history, education, society, or whatever. and then you are surprised if this gets rewarded with occasional mockery or angry attack?

And this double standard, dear Takeda, is something that goes along all too naturally with you.

And while on two or three occasions in the past two or three weeks you fired a quick shot obviously aimed at my direction in some threads where I even had not participated until then, you have the nerve to still posture as the victim, the target of"my crusade for atheism and supression of religion? The truth is you just cannot stand it when religion is being challenged by argument and demands for reasonable checks and evidence, and gets called by its real name, and gets recommended to be left in the private cabin where it belongs. You want card blanche for it, and all who do not agree with it should step aside for it. Heck, you even have started to snipe at me where I even was not engaged in any religious comment at all just because you know how I think on religion! And just days ago you mourned about religion-bashing "starting again" - in a thread where it was not even made an object! I had to grin when I read that.

This all makes you a hypocrite just like any other fundamentalist. And I do not differ between Christian fundamentalist or Quranic Muhammeddans or Jewish orthodox or whatever the idol is called by name. They are all the same, and they all want the same. And that would be equal to the death of free society, freedom of expression, and secular society.

I've said this in these or similiar words so often:

Keep thy religion to thyself. Keep society free of it. Spare others from needing to always take note of what precious idols you have chosen to take for real - it'S your idols and your choice, not theirs, so why would you expect them to care for your stuff? Staying passive, so that society can be an open place for everybody to be in. What colours you paint your flat's walls in, is nothing strangers usually take interest in. And why should they? Your flat is not that important, you know.(...) Freedom is more valuable and precious, than religion's claims for things and status it does not deserve and has never earned nor justified by test and verification. Better then to keep your religion where it belongs: inside your heart, inside your mind, and in the realm of your home. Do no harm against others, help the weak, practice a little love in your life while leaving others their freedom and dignity - that is religion practiced best. Needs no ceremony, no temple, and no scripture, you can have it with you where ever you are, even when you are skin naked . And best of it: it turns yourself into a better being.

That is somethign religion certainly has issues with. Okay then, let it have issues with it. Bring it on.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 03:44 PM

For you religious guys every opposition to you wanting to have your ways, unobstructed, is "too loud". You want more space, and at the cost of others not sharing your claims: you nevertheless demand them to give room to you, and accepting less for themselves. In other words: double standards regarding freedom: freedom for you, and those not agreeing are expected to fall back and shut up and accept their freedom being cut.

Sorry, not with people like me.

So according to you I go around and attack people. Ah yes. That implies I actively engage and go on the offensive. Well, problem with religious zealots and hypocrites - I mean people like you, if you have not noted it - is that they measure with double standards.

Let'S have a reality check on my active creation of opportunities to raid others and land a score by sniping at their religion.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=2

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=3

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?searchid=1452112&pp=50&page=4

I ended the record at the beginning of this year.

If that proves anything, than not that I am going around and go after religious people. But I certainly - and have said that many times - react to other people raising religious issues in threads. I recommended to not do so and leave that kind of stuff out of this forum. Many times. I agree that I am a regular participant in such talks that get created by others. But that does not prove I am after my chances to victimize poor religion where I can. It only proves how often religious topics and opinions get brought up by others - and you and other believing people here expecting people like me to stay put and fall silent and not opposing these views and hide our own even if we see religious views corrupting scientific terms and concepts, or politics, history, education, society, or whatever. and then you are surprised if this gets rewarded with occasional mockery or angry attack?

And this double standard, dear Takeda, is something that goes along all too naturally with you.

And while on two or three occasions in the past two or three weeks you fired a quick shot obviously aimed at my direction in some threads where I even had not participated until then, you have the nerve to still posture as the victim, the target of"my crusade for atheism and supression of religion? The truth is you just cannot stand it when religion is being challenged by argument and demands for reasonable checks and evidence, and gets called by its real name, and gets recommended to be left in the private cabin where it belongs. You want card blanche for it, and all who do not agree with it should step aside for it. Heck, you even have started to snipe at me where I even was not engaged in any religious comment at all just because you know how I think on religion! And just days ago you mourned about religion-bashing "starting again" - in a thread where it was not even made an object! I had to grin when I read that.

This all makes you a hypocrite just like any other fundamentalist. And I do not differ between Christian fundamentalist or Quranic Muhammeddans or Jewish orthodox or whatever the idol is called by name. They are all the same, and they all want the same. And that would be equal to the death of free society, freedom of expression, and secular society.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1951363&postcount=67

Read that post. Then come back and apologize. I'll be here.

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 03:48 PM

@ Skybird: All four of you links lead to "Sorry, no matches", at least for me.

Skybird

10-22-12, 04:06 PM

@ Skybird: All four of you links lead to "Sorry, no matches", at least for me.
Check for my record of launched threads from my profiles. That is what the links were about, listing all threads I launched since January this year. Originally I had 12 screenshots, but imageshack does not work well for me, creating blurred images only. Don't know why.

Skybird

10-22-12, 04:12 PM

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1951363&postcount=67

Read that post. Then come back and apologize. I'll be here.

Hope you have patience, for you will need plenty of it.

What you claim to be like, I am not that much interested in. What you actually say and do is what gets my attention. And the recent weeks of comments by you were a revelation for me and have made me skipping one name from my list of forum members that for many years I always held in very high respect and considered to be one of the most reasonable people around this board. But no more. I do not believe your self-description anymore.

But as you already told me in the recent past you do not care for your reputation with me anyway, so you must not feel concerned by that.

I also repeatedly offered you the opportunity to leave behind the personal conflict between us that this all has turned into. I stayed calm where you kept on attacking me, offered a relaxed dose of humour as an opportunity to defuse a situation, and did not react on several occasions where I would have had all reason to react sharply. I hoped you would see that, and just avoid me like I wanted to avoid you. Well, did not work. Maybe I was too subtle, could be.

Over the years, I have apologized in this forum to people, occasionally, were I was wrong, or let my temper go wild with me, or I realised that conflict was deriving from misunderstandings. And I'm ready to do so again if the need arises. But the apology you demand here , is something I let you wait over until this forum has seized to exist.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 04:15 PM

Hope you have patience, for you will need plenty of it.

What you claim to be like, I am not that much interested in. What you actually say and do is what gets my attention. And the recent weeks of comments by you were a revelation for me and have made me skipping one name from my list of forum members that for many years I always held in very high respect and considered to be one of the most reasonable people around this board.

But as you already told me in the recent past you do not care for your reputation with me anyway, so you must not feel concerned by that.

I called you out on that before and you chose to ignore it. I'll say it again: Find where I have ever said that my religious view should be forced on anyone. As we say in the 'states, time to put up or shut up.

I suspect that you simply do not like to have your views challenged. I would then suggest that discourse on an internet forum may not be for you.

You're going to make me edit because you keep editing:

I also repeatedly offered you the opportunity to leave behind the personal conflict between us that this all has turned into. I stayed calm where you kept on attacking me, offered a relaxed dose of humour as an opportunity to defuse a situation, and did not react on several occasions where I would have had all reason to react sharply. I hoped you would see that, and just avoid me like I wanted to avoid you. Well, did not work. Maybe I was too subtle, could be.

Bull. I've addressed your views. You see it as personal. I've never called you the names that you can called me (igrorant, simplistic, foolish, et al). If you could, I have no doubt that I would be on your ignore list like everyone else that has the audacity to disagree with you. Again, if you aren't big enough to have those views challenged, then maybe you aren't big enough to play here. Grow up.

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 04:16 PM

In one night, this thread has gained 5 pages!

This is incredible!

Dowly

10-22-12, 04:25 PM

In one night, this thread has gained 5 pages!

This is incredible!

Try "predictable".

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 04:29 PM

Try "predictable".

Seriously. Post a contentious topic and be amazed when it takes off. :doh:

Skybird

10-22-12, 04:32 PM

I called you out on that before and you chose to ignore it. I'll say it again: Find where I have ever said that my religious view should be forced on anyone. As we say in the 'states, time to put up or shut up.

I suspect that you simply do not like to have your views challenged. I would then suggest that discourse on an internet forum may not be for you.
I am not interested in your selfdescription of what you claim to be and then dress your words around that accordingly - I take note of that you measure by double standards as described earlier, and I draw the consequence from your recent way of behavior. Deeds count heavier to me than words. I certainly do not expect you to agree with my view of you, now. Bye.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 04:37 PM

Deeds count heavier to me than words.

They do. And all considered, they're saying a lot more about you than they do about me. You deliberately misrepresented me time and time again, and you are proud of it. Shame on you. :down:

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 04:40 PM

Seriously. Post a contentious topic and be amazed when it takes off. :doh:

Oi, I go to a Catholic school, and if I screamed out "Jesus is a fake! The Pope is a paedophile!" the most I'd get would be a slap on the wrist by the teachers.

August

10-22-12, 04:42 PM

They do. And all considered, they're saying a lot more about you than they do about me. You deliberately misrepresented me time and time again, and you are proud of it. Shame on you. :down:

Welcome to the club Takeda. You will not be invited to join Skybirds ever shrinking circle of friends... :)

Buddahaid

10-22-12, 04:50 PM

It wasn't. It was a joke, with some apparent truth behind it.

I've known a great many people who went to church their whole lives and never believed. I have known many who do believe, and spend their spare time studying the Bible and not much else. Most of the world, as you point out, will say they believe, but never seem to show it, only attending church on special occasions and spending most of their time ignoring the attending rules and commandments.

I no longer believe, and yet I don't truly disbelieve, claiming only that I don't know. Being honest, this leads me to wonder whether I truly believed when I claimed to, the only real evidence for belief, as Jesus said, is your actions and deeds. So, while I can't see into anyone else's heart it looks to me like if someone doesn't actively live the Christian life then it can be safely said that they only give lip service.

I read this the other day and it seems to apply to your comment.

Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a mechanic.

Morts

10-22-12, 04:52 PM

How we should treat eachother ? That shouldnt even be a question.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 04:53 PM

Welcome to the club Takeda. You will not be invited to join Skybirds ever shrinking circle of friends... :)

Yeah, looks like we're never going to get that Team Skybird tee shirt. Damn.

u crank

10-22-12, 04:59 PM

Wow. I go to work and this! Seven pages.

I didn't vote either. The answer is to obvious. Call me old fashion but I think you should treat anybody who disagrees with you with respect. The issue is not important. If you don't get respect in return, it's not your problem.

I also think healthy, respectful debate is good. Even enjoyable. An exchange of opposing views can lead to a better understanding and you might even learn something. That being said, I realize that this is a polarizing issue and few people are willing to give ground.

Keep thy religion to thyself. Keep society free of it. Spare others from needing to always take note of what precious idols you have chosen to take for real - it'S your idols and your choice, not theirs, so why would you expect them to care for your stuff? Staying passive, so that society can be an open place for everybody to be in. What colours you paint your flat's walls in, is nothing strangers usually take interest in. And why should they? Your flat is not that important, you know.

I'm sorry, but this is not freedom of expression or freedom of religion. It is the exact opposite. I live in a free democratic society. I can put a billboard on my front lawn, I can write a letter to the editor or I can stand on the street corner and say whatever I want. And so can you. The subject matter is irrelevant. When this right is taken away, look out. What you're suggesting is suppression of thought and expression. If you start with religion, what's next? Political opinion? And who decides?

I don't have a problem with atheists....

I can have my religion. I can practice my religion. But I cannot force others to practice it.

There you go.

Going to Church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a mechanic.

There you go again. :up:

kiwi_2005

10-22-12, 05:05 PM

Well whether you are a atheist, into buddism or part of a druid society doesn't bother me, we're all Gods people even if some of us believe they can fly or shapeshift into cat form...:haha: Try and get on with everyone as a people on this earth we all have the same ending. Death. Then for some there is the afterlife. :)

Sammi79

10-22-12, 05:07 PM

Sorry this took so long, I was enjoying the discussion here and wanted to continue.

I don't know where you're getting your information from Sammi but FYI:

In this country it is illegal to discriminate for employment based on a persons religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is illegal to threaten or attack a person for any reason including religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I'm not going to say it never happens. After all in a country of 300 million people you can find examples of just about any behavior good or bad, but it is not very common and is not at all tolerated by the mainstream.

Quite. I've always been a staunch admirer of the US constitution. I'm not sure where I heard it myself, but it was fairly recent (last 2-3) years. Might have been a Dawkins doc, or it might have been a Theroux doc. It might have been an atheist forum or some such. Actually it may have been a caller on 'The Atheist Experience' show that I follow intermittently, which would not lend any particular credibility to it of course. Anybody else follow that show at all?

And indeed, like I said - I do not generally trust it. It is much better to hear from the horses mouth so to speak, about attitudes in a foreign country. Even then, everyone (including myself) has their own bias.

Just a quick web search gave me this though, from early 2011. Certain posters do certainly feel that atheists in USA are generally not trusted etc. and are convinced that were their views made public they would likely be discriminated against for it. I would appreciate your opinion as to the validity of it, since I have only scanned briefly:

http://live.washingtonpost.com/why-do-americans-hate-atheists-herb-silverman.html

If for nothing else, Herb Silverman has some excellent replies to the questions posed (mainly by atheists) I would like to hear if any religious folks here look down on atheists generally, or distrust them generally, and if so, why? conversely I must retract my statement regarding physical violence, as I cannot find much about that at all, though I am sure I have heard it. Thinking about it it was likely a Bill Hicks routine...

And this from Wikipedia, how true is this? -

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

If that's not blatant discrimination against atheists I don't know what is. Interestingly, Texas' line also states everything in the masculine, does this mean women need not apply?

August

10-22-12, 05:14 PM

Just remember Sammi it's a lot more difficult to rally the troops (so to speak) if you don't have some injustice to rally around. Religions do this all the time so it should hardly be surprising that an anti-religious organization would use the same tactics to generate support for their cause too.

Buddahaid

10-22-12, 05:32 PM

Tribesman

10-22-12, 05:36 PM

No, I was not. This includes several of my jobs. There was no voting. My hiring was based on ability, education, experience and of course my good looks.

You were chosen from a list of candidates for the job

BTW, your voting definition or twist on words really sucks. :down: I don't mind telling you. Voted into my job by customers...sheesh.
Voting with your wallet, voting with your feet:yeah:

I guess I'm a customer to Obama under that logic? Last time I checked and sent in my weekly tax collection I was a citizen.
That works both ways:03:

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 05:36 PM

Oi, I go to a Catholic school, and if I screamed out "Jesus is a fake! The Pope is a paedophile!" the most I'd get would be a slap on the wrist by the teachers.
That's because Catholics are not Fundamentalists. I attended a Catholic high school, possibly before your parents were born, and it was true even then: Catholics in general fall under what more hardcore believers describe as 'Liberal Christians'. Catholic scholars like to study all branches of faith, and publicly recognize that there is a chance they might not be right.

This of course is a generalism if not a generalization, and doesn't apply to all individuals. The fact remains that, informally at least, the Catholic Church is nowhere near as hardcore as it once was.

August

10-22-12, 05:37 PM

Bad choice of words perhaps? Just because one is an Atheist doesn't make one anti-religious, merely a non-believer.

Very true but I was talking about Atheist organizations, not Atheists themselves..

Skybird

10-22-12, 05:38 PM

I'm sorry, but this is not freedom of expression or freedom of religion. It is the exact opposite. I live in a free democratic society. I can put a billboard on my front lawn, I can write a letter to the editor or I can stand on the street corner and say whatever I want. And so can you. The subject matter is irrelevant. When this right is taken away, look out. What you're suggesting is suppression of thought and expression. If you start with religion, what's next? Political opinion? And who decides?#
I say your freedom ends where your freedom claims to grow at the cost of the freedom of others. And that is the problem. Unlimited freedom is not possiblewhere oyu live not all alone and independent, but in social community with others from whom you take and whom you give and they trake from you and give to you. Social life to some degree is unfree life. Total freedom can only be had at the cost of total absence of social life. And that is a form of anarchy then, and law of the jungle.

In case of the US, the first amendment also makes sure that the state is not allowed to make laws and administrates not on behalf of interests of religious groups and organisations. This is to make sure the state and it'S bodies, services and offices, stays secular and neutral. Freedom of religion includes the right of freedom from religion - else religion turns into a dictatorship, a theocracy. And history shows us how badly all three theistic world religions behave and what incredible cruelty and fanatism they give birth to when being allowed to run states and govern societies according to the dogma of their priests' organisations and own interests. Terrible cruelty, intolerance, fanatism. The worst crimes and disasters and wars in the West were committed in the name of religion. No terror that was too terrible as if not to excuse it by religion. Inhumane barbarity. Discrimination of the non-conformist as moral duty. Intolerance and hate as a viurtue.

No, we should not wan to go back to that. We have Saudi Arabia and Iran to have living reminders of these reasons in modern time.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

Compare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/in-texas-a-legal-battle-over-biblical-banners.html?hp&_r=2&

Why bible quotes in public schools tax payers pay for? What has religious club ideology to do with school sport competitions? Public school shcould be secular, and clean from such propaganda. Their curriculae shall stay free from religious ideologic content as well.

Earlier this year there was a story about school students being mobbed for their atheism, even threatened with murder. And atheist families in certain parts of the US need to hide their atheist thinking and need to act "as if" because in their social neighbourhood they else would need fear for being avoided, mobbed, discriminated, and stripped of jobs and opportunities at school. Certain laws in several states of the Us until today discriminate agaiunst athgeists. And high politicians are allowed to say in public that in their opinion atheists are not even real Americans without these politics suffering a ****storm that would teach them to be more humble. and since a long time there is stiff lobbying done to turn the Us into a non-secular country. Coins and notes were supplemented with God-relating texts. The pledge of allegiance was supplemented accordingly. Creationism tries to win equal reputation beside sciences.

Freedom of expression yes- for religion. All others have to care for themselves. That is exactly the same attitude as expressed in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. Which is a document of tyranny and subjugation, and has nothing to do with human rights and freedom. Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muhammeddan totalitarianism than they can want to realise. In the end, the three monotheistic desert dogmas all are one and the same breed.

Sorry, but there has to be drawn a line, and laws protecting it. Else you end up in a theocratic regime sooner or later. And the freedoms and rights of religious people shall have no higher value and respect than that if believers of others sects, or atheists or whomever. The basic rules of living in a state and a society need to safeguard the secular basic nature, else you get into trouble. Religion has to accept this. But religious people, if they are fundamentalist enough, don't agree to that. Since they see the benefit for their faith if society gets changed in its favour, they want right that. The violation of rights of non-believers and different-believers and atheists they care the less for the more fundamentalist they are themselves. And so the double -standards begin to get accepted.

Everybody playing his radio at a volume setting that all others can listen tom theirs without being disturbed. That way, all conflict is avoided. Just one foul apple pumping up the volume can ruin it for all others.

CaptainMattJ.

10-22-12, 05:53 PM

the conflict comes from when people try to nudge into other people's business. Just because you believe something doesnt mean you get to ram it down everyone's throat.

just because you believe gays are immoral and sinners doesnt mean you get to deny them a right to marry

Just because you think abortion is immoral doesnt mean you get to limit people's right to have one (to a reasonable extent)

Just because you believe in a god doesnt mean you should involve him in governing.

Thats why they are incompatible. because the separation of things like church and state dont ring home with some people. You have every right to believe absolutely anything, just keep it to yourself. Having an impartial government is essential to democracy for those who dont believe in your religion.

I believe its a very simple concept. your right to do what you want exclude anything that interfere with mine. John Stuart mill put it pretty well, "The liberty to move your arm ends where my nose begins".

August

10-22-12, 06:06 PM

AVGWarhawk

10-22-12, 06:11 PM

You were chosen from a list of candidates for the job

Chosen from a list is not the same as a vote. Good day sir.

CaptainHaplo

10-22-12, 06:15 PM

And I do not differ between Christian fundamentalist or Quranic Muhammeddans or Jewish orthodox or whatever the idol is called by name. They are all the same, and they all want the same. And that would be equal to the death of free society, freedom of expression, and secular society.

And there you prove the point, Skybird.

You say atheists don't attack - yet you end your statement with what is clearly an over-generalizing attack on those of faith.

Sammi79

10-22-12, 06:27 PM

Yubba, do you really believe in God, or like so many others do you just give 'lip service' when it suits you? I've never seen you do anything but run down Liberals. You don't seem to actually believe in anything but trashing the 'other side'.

Pascals wager has to be the lamest excuse for religious belief, ever. I doubt Forest Gump would be fooled by lip service, let alone a god. My atheism is a bit like it in reverse mind. I am going to be so ticked off if I am wrong, there will be war in the after life, I guarantee it. I will need some pretty hefty answers about why all these suspiciously self contradictory books, why the allowing of evil, why the lack of communication, why oh why Justin Bieber/Lady Gaga etc. to put me off. Otherwise it'll be BOOM beddie bye bye god. :stare:

Joking of course, I'll be locked in a room full of my friends (the ugly ones) with 'The Final Countdown' playing on a loop, 20' chopsticks and a giant plate full of couscous and a white hot poker up my behind for all eternity no doubt. :/\\!!
Oh and flies, there will be lots of flies, I hate flies. The only creatures to ever tempt me away from non violence.

u crank

10-22-12, 06:55 PM

I say your freedom ends where your freedom claims to grow at the cost of the freedom of others. And that is the problem. Unlimited freedom is not possiblewhere oyu live not all alone and independent, but in social community with others from whom you take and whom you give and they trake from you and give to you. Social life to some degree is unfree life. Total freedom can only be had at the cost of total absence of social life. And that is a form of anarchy then, and law of the jungle.

I think we are talking about two different things. What I was referring to is personal freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the state. What I as an individual citizen am allowed to say regarding religion or for that matter anything. I should not be hinder from expressing myself. Nothing I can say as an individual citizen should infringe on "the cost of the freedom of others." Of course if I'm slandering them or suggesting that they should be harmed, that is a different matter. But to suggest that God exists? To talk openly about Him?

Surely you're not saying people should keep silent about that?

If so what about...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/bJomQ2i9Dqj859edGigyVqwso1_500.jpg

Now that's freedom of expression.

Sorry, but there has to be drawn a line, and laws protecting it. Else you end up in a theocratic regime sooner or later. And the freedoms and rights of religious people shall have no higher value and respect than that if believers of others sects, or atheists or whomever. The basic rules of living in a state and a society need to safeguard the secular basic nature, else you get into trouble. Religion has to accept this. But religious people, if they are fundamentalist enough, don't agree to that. Since they see the benefit for their faith if society gets changed in its favour, they want right that. The violation of rights of non-believers and different-believers and atheists they care the less for the more fundamentalist they are themselves. And so the double -standards begin to get accepted.

I think you are looking at an extreme scenario here. It's just not going to happen. Not in a democratic state with freedom of expression and a diverse mix of viewpoints. Especially in the USA. To many people with guns.:haha: Nor in my country, Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that if a country that already has separation of Church and State were to allow this to happen, religion playing a role in government, then something is very wrong in that country.

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 07:11 PM

CCIP

10-22-12, 07:20 PM

Now, I'm a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang and evoloution, but the Big Bang just doesn't work without some sort of God.

How? Here's how:

OK, so the current theory is that before the Big Bang, the Universe was tiny, perhaps the size of an ant. The Big Bang and subsequent expansion was caused by the only two items of matter, two atoms, collided and exploded.

Problem: Where did those Atoms come from?

Non-Religous explanation: Maybe they where left over from a previous universe, which had collapsed on itself, leaving only 2 atoms left.

But how did that universe form?

Religous Explanation: A God made those 2 atoms, and made them collide.

Also, the Vatican has said that the Earth being made in 7 days is probably just a Myth.

Would any Atheists care to argue with me?

I'm not an atheist per se, but the common-sense argument is why does the creation of the universe have to presuppose intentional, intelligent design? Why couldn't it have happened by accident?

The typical creationist/deist explanations usually point to the complexity and balance of the universe, but the further both philosophy and theoretical physics go, the more reason there is to see nothing inherently "intelligent" or "meaningful" about the fact of the universe's existence and shape.There is no probabilistic reason that something as complex as the current universe or human life couldn't exist by pure coincidence. What's more, there is evidence that the universe is far from "perfect", "balanced" and "beautiful", but is in fact full of bizarreness, disbalance and chaos that can't be reduced to some kind of governing principle - instead, there is a view that the universe is a place of difference, where no two things, forces, moments, or even atoms are truly alike. Certainly a lot of post-modern thinking would tend in this direction.

So, the most advanced atheist argument simply has a different basis entirely. Whereas the deist argument seeks to explain a God as the reason for the "Big Bang", the post-modern atheist might ask why you need to look for a reductive reason at all.

mookiemookie

10-22-12, 07:20 PM

I am not interested in your selfdescription of what you claim to be and then dress your words around that accordingly - I take note of that you measure by double standards as described earlier, and I draw the consequence from your recent way of behavior. Deeds count heavier to me than words. I certainly do not expect you to agree with my view of you, now. Bye.

What a joke. Tak is one of the most unobtrusive religious people around here, and you deign to call him essentially a zealot and accuse him of pushing his beliefs on people.

For shame indeed.

CCIP

10-22-12, 07:27 PM

What a joke. Tak is one of the most unobtrusive religious people around here, and you deign to call him essentially a zealot and accuse him of pushing his beliefs on people.

For shame indeed.

All the more ironic considering who has a reputation for zeal around here...

There's a lot to be said for militant atheism!

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 07:27 PM

I'm not an atheist per se, but the common-sense argument is why does the creation of the universe have to presuppose intentional, intelligent design? Why couldn't it have happened by accident?

The typical creationist/deist explanations usually point to the complexity and balance of the universe, but the further both philosophy and theoretical physics go, the more reason there is to see nothing inherently "intelligent" or "meaningful" about the fact of the universe's existence and shape.There is no probabilistic reason that something as complex as the current universe or human life couldn't exist by pure coincidence. What's more, there is evidence that the universe is far from "perfect", "balanced" and "beautiful", but is in fact full of bizarreness, disbalance and chaos that can't be reduced to some kind of governing principle - instead, there is a view that the universe is a place of difference, where no two things, forces, moments, or even atoms are truly alike. Certainly a lot of post-modern thinking would tend in this direction.

So, the most advanced atheist argument simply has a different basis entirely. Whereas the deist argument seeks to explain a God as the reason for the "Big Bang", the post-modern atheist might ask why you need to look for a reductive reason at all.

Good point.

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 08:14 PM

Problem: Where did those Atoms come from?

Non-Religous explanation: Maybe they where left over from a previous universe, which had collapsed on itself, leaving only 2 atoms left.

But how did that universe form?

Religous Explanation: A God made those 2 atoms, and made them collide.

Also, the Vatican has said that the Earth being made in 7 days is probably just a Myth.

Would any Atheists care to argue with me?
The problem with your summation is that it presupposes some sort of knowledge. Your 'Non-Religious explanation' isn't an explanation at all, just a "maybe". Your 'Religious' explanation is an explanation, but it's based on a supposition, a pre-existing belief. This makes both of them nothing more than guesses. The only real possible answer to the question of where the atoms come from is "I don't know".

Scientific theories are based on observed phenomena. Science is incapable of explaing why things exist, only how. Unless there is some evidence for any supposition, it ceases to be theory and becomes a guess.

"Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant use of four simple words: I do not know."
-Andre Maurois

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 08:20 PM

The problem with your summation is that it presupposes some sort of knowledge. Your 'Non-Religious explanation' isn't an explanation at all, just a "maybe"

That's because there is no scientific explanation. Which proves my point: the universe was formed by some higher being.

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 08:26 PM

That's because there is no scientific explanation. Which proves my point: the universe was formed by some higher being.
How do you know that? Not "Why do you believe it, but how do you know?" Is there the slightest bit of evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Until you realize that where there are no facts there is no knowledge, you'll continue to live in a fantasy world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't a higher being. I'm not saying the Christians are wrong. I'm not even saying the Muslims are wrong. What I'm saying is that I don't know, and neither do you. Unless you have a fact you can point to that shows that the universe was formed by some higher being, then you're only guessing, and your "point" is not proven, and in fact is no point at all.

Cybermat47

10-22-12, 08:32 PM

^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe I should have rephrased that.

What I mean is that the God theory is the most likely.

You can't honestly expect me to write perfectly structured arguments, I mean, I'm only 13 years old, at school, a CATHOLIC school, with a teacher walking around, and I'm saying that the existence of God isn't fact, but it's the most likely explanation.

Things could get ugly.

CCIP

10-22-12, 08:38 PM

That's because there is no scientific explanation. Which proves my point: the universe was formed by some higher being.

No, that doesn't prove anything, actually. Nor should it, because last I checked, religion is about beliefs, not proofs.

Scientific theories are based on observed phenomena. Science is incapable of explaing why things exist, only how. Unless there is some evidence for any supposition, it ceases to be theory and becomes a guess.

Therein lies the crux of the issue, I think. The thing is that religion/spirituality vs. science is a false opposition. In their proper form, they do not even ask the same questions, and while they both look at problems of existence, they start literally on the opposite ends. They don't negate each other.

The problems start when people mistake one for the other, i.e. believing that spiritual revelations are more valid than observation at explaining "how", or believing that observation definitively explains "why". And then the arguing starts.

I think both sides are equally guilty of trying to negate the other through inappropriate use of two modes of knowledge, which in the case of religious fundamentalism turns into replacement of observation with dogma, and in the case of militant atheism assigns observation the divine property of being positive proof that nothing but what is observed is possible.

To me, if you discard all the nonsense, scientific method and spiritual revelation are simply two different modes of thinking that move towards the same existential problems from opposite sides. It's silly to confuse one with the other, or pretend that one has precedence over the other. Unfortunately, the nature of social institutions that stand behind religion and science in our world is such that they have to promote this division in order to thrive. This has nothing to do with the essence of things, and everything to do with the politics of being human.

Takeda Shingen

10-22-12, 08:41 PM

No, that doesn't prove anything, actually. Nor should it, because last I checked, religion is about beliefs, not proofs.

Absolutely. Religion is always about belief. I cannot explain nor convince you of my view. It is something you either feel or it is not. To say that the fact that the formation of the universe can not conclusively explained proves the correctness of my faith is ridiculous.

And thank you for the kind words, both CCIP and mookie.

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 08:56 PM

What I mean is that the God theory is the most likely.
Again, why is it the most likely?

I'm only 13 years old
And right now you're playing in a sandbox with experienced adults, some of whom were having this same discussion before you were born. It's one of the hazards of the internet.

Things could get ugly.
There are things you can't say in your current environment. Here we can say them. And more importantly, think them. Reason is a learned habit, and not that many adults know how to use it. Unless you question everything you run the danger of accepting anything. By "question" I don't mean assume that everything people tell you is wrong; I just mean wonder why. Wonder why they said that. Wonder why they believe that. Nobody knows everything, and to my mind the most dangerous people are the ones who assume they know anything at all. If you can't show it with facts, there's always the chance it may not be true.

Gargamel

10-22-12, 09:37 PM

Ask why. THe world is not black and white.

Hence, my flippant response.

To pigeon hole these sorts of beliefs into yes/no categories will never lead anybody towards the right answer.

Hell, check out my sig, which I've had for multiple decades on multiple forums, as my true answer to your poll.

Absolutism in any form is always wrong.

(Irony?)

Task Force

10-22-12, 11:08 PM

Sailor Steve

10-22-12, 11:08 PM

Hell, check out my sig, which I've had for multiple decades on multiple forums, as my true answer to your poll.
And here I change mine the first of every month. Go figure.

Absolutism in any form is always wrong.
Words to live by. Too bad so few do.

CaptainMattJ.

10-23-12, 01:12 AM

This raises a good point.

It's comparatively easy in this country to dismiss just about anything if you cast it as a religious issue.

There are non religious people who oppose abortion and gay marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. It doesn't have to be about those two hot button issues, religion is used against people just because they oppose a political candidate. Anyone remember Obamas "clinging to guns or religion" comment?
it goes further than religion. My ending statement was simply about your rights. Gay marriage doesnt infringe on your rights or endanger anyone so why shouldnt they be allowed to do it? Abortion is the only argument worth arguing for, for which its still the woman's choice.

The argument i have about abortion is what the week limit should be set to. i think it should be set to around 15-17 weeks when the fetus develops a brain that has partitioned areas for higher function indicative of a human. Because before that point, the fetus possess common organs found in most every mammal, such as the heart and liver, many of which arent specific to humans. Its the woman's body and her choice up until the fetus inside of her begins to develop brain function. That is when i believe abortion should become not possible, except in cases of inbreeding/rape in which the fetus might develop crippling diseases.

Religion or no, limiting someone's right to do something that isnt infringing o yours is pretty nonsensical to me.

Skybird

10-23-12, 05:29 AM

I have always believed that atheists and people of religion should treat each other with respect, at the worst at least tolerate each other.

Hating someone because they do or do not believe in religion is as stupid as hating someone for not believing chocolate chip is the best flavor cookie...

Behaving respectfully - not submissive or defensive! - towards the other in a normal social interaction, is what we call politeness. And that is okay. As a matter of fact, with most strangers you and me interact in daily life, we simply do not know whether he/she thinks religious or atheistic, and is a fanatic on it or not. Politeness it is, then.

Demanding to pay respect to the other' ideology and ideological background just because it claims that and wants it so, is something very different.

And tolerance, while it works in most cases to tolerate the ordinary differences between yourself and your neighbour, differences can be not just small, but also big, decisive and indeed can make a serious difference regarding what shape the world is both have to live in. So it is a desirable ideal to have situations only where one can tolerate each other, but one needs to stay aware that differences can become such that mutual tolerance can only be had at too high costs, or in extreme: self-denial of the one on behalfg of the other. Tolerance works often - but not always. It must accept limits.

Tribesman

10-23-12, 10:55 AM

Chosen from a list is not the same as a vote. Good day sir.
It is for the people doing the choosing.

religion is used against people just because they oppose a political candidate. Anyone remember Obamas "clinging to guns or religion" comment?

Remember people trying to claim it was an attack on the people and on religion:doh:

All the more ironic considering who has a reputation for zeal around here...

an intolerant fundamentalist zealot of the militant atheist flavour? never:rotfl2:

Absolutism in any form is always wrong.

Absolutely

August

10-23-12, 11:04 AM

Religion or no, limiting someone's right to do something that isnt infringing o yours is pretty nonsensical to me.

I'm not getting into the abortion or gay rights arguments. I just pointed out that objections to those issues are often cast as a religious issue and it is done to marginalize the opposition.

Tribesman

10-23-12, 11:11 AM

I'm not getting into the abortion or gay rights arguments. I just pointed out that objections to those issues are often cast as a religious issue and it is done to marginalize the opposition.
Any links to some atheist anti abortion campaigns? maybe some atheist anti gay marriage ones for good measure?

AVGWarhawk

10-23-12, 12:25 PM

Any links to some atheist anti abortion campaigns? maybe some atheist anti gay marriage ones for good measure?

Sure. Here's one:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jen_roth_atheist_against_abortion/

http://www.allourlives.org/

Tribesman

10-23-12, 12:36 PM

Thanks.

Tribesman

10-23-12, 12:50 PM

So your first isn't wanting abortions banned and the second is mainly about disabled rights and they say they are against abortion being illegal.

AVGWarhawk

10-23-12, 12:53 PM

So your first isn't wanting abortions banned and the second is mainly about disabled rights and they say they are against abortion being illegal.

She is the co-founder of All Our Lives(second link). All I can say is she is campaigning against abortion and is atheist. Personally, it looks to me, they really do not know what they want. :88)

Tribesman

10-23-12, 12:57 PM

Personally, it looks to me, they really do not know what they want. :88)
"
What is your stand on abortion and the law? (http://www.allourlives.org/faqs/what-is-your-stand-on-abortion-and-the-law/)

Our members hold a range of views on this subject. We focus instead on something so often neglected even though it is deeply decisive: increasing women***8217;s alternatives in pregnancy prevention and in getting through difficult pregnancies and beyond. Expanding women***8217;s nonviolent choices in all countries is urgently necessary, whatever the legal status of abortion in any particular nation. This is the surest way to promote respect for the lives of both women and children, unborn and already born.
That much said, we do oppose laws and practices that we believe to criminalize woman who seek or have abortions, or who engage in other actions such as substance use/abuse or suicidal behavior that can be harmful to their unborn children. Please learn more here (http://www.allourlives.org/all-our-lives-joins-amicus-brief-in-alabama-substance-abuse-cases/) and here (http://www.allourlives.org/criminalizing-women-is-not-prolife-and-never-was/) about our rationale and our proposed alternatives to such laws."

Could be worse, it could have been the anarchists against abortion who don't really know if they do really know if they can be bothered to know what they want"

u crank

10-23-12, 04:29 PM

Therein lies the crux of the issue, I think. The thing is that religion/spirituality vs. science is a false opposition. In their proper form, they do not even ask the same questions, and while they both look at problems of existence, they start literally on the opposite ends. They don't negate each other.

That is a very good summation of the argument/problem. Especially the false opposition part. As a Christian I see absolutely no conflict between science and faith. I believe in a Creator and science is explaining and revealing that creation. And very well if I may say so. Of course there are some controversial issues that cause heated debate but both sides seem to be jumping to conclusions. There is still along way to go before science says "Okay we're done."

Whether there is a God or not does not change the scientific data.

I think both sides are equally guilty of trying to negate the other through inappropriate use of two modes of knowledge, which in the case of religious fundamentalism turns into replacement of observation with dogma, and in the case of militant atheism assigns observation the divine property of being positive proof that nothing but what is observed is possible.

I have often marvelled at the irrational fear that each side has for the others opinion.

Unfortunately, the nature of social institutions that stand behind religion and science in our world is such that they have to promote this division in order to thrive.

And I would say that that is one of the main reasons for this fear.

Fish

10-23-12, 04:40 PM

But other people, like you, obviously believe everyone (apart from the 13 year old boy writing this right now) deserves respect.

I think you (and anybody els) should earn respect before I offer it to you. :03:

Cybermat47

10-23-12, 05:34 PM

I think you (and anybody els) should earn respect before I offer it to you. :03:

Fair enough.

Sailor Steve

10-23-12, 05:58 PM

I wouldn't say that this poll is useless.
Sorry I didn't pay close enough attention to this one earlier.

What makes a poll useless (to my mind)? Simply the fact that it's not useful. It's obvious what the answer is going to be. No one is honestly going to say they think people should treat each other badly. The ones who did were almost certainly joking. Therefore, a poll this limited accomplishes nothing, and is therefore useless.

Also, you haven't been here long enough to know my sense of humor. For that I apologize.

But other people, like you, obviously believe everyone (apart from the 13 year old boy writing this right now) deserves respect.
Not true. I believe in showing everyone respect until they prove they don't deserve it; exactly the opposite of the "must be earned" school of thought. I certainly respect your opinions. My mostly-not-serious comment wasn't about opinions, it was about polls that can only have one serious answer.

I'm interested in finding out about other peoples opinions. Plenty of people are (No, I'm not going to put up a poll about that).
Most of the old-timers here (and I mean those who have been here for awhile, not those of us who are genuinely old) already know each others' opinions on most subjects, and have already decided who deserves our respect and who doesn't

My comment about "useless polls" wasn't about your question, only about the poll itself. Asking questions is the only way to learn. Endless polls don't serve that purpose. This is true of most of the polls that have ever been started in General Topics.

Skybird

10-23-12, 07:35 PM

I think we are talking about two different things. What I was referring to is personal freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the state. What I as an individual citizen am allowed to say regarding religion or for that matter anything. I should not be hinder from expressing myself. Nothing I can say as an individual citizen should infringe on "the cost of the freedom of others." Of course if I'm slandering them or suggesting that they should be harmed, that is a different matter. But to suggest that God exists? To talk openly about Him?
That is fine as long as people not wanting to need to hear you or who got tired to tell you time and again to talk to somebody else and stop bothering them, inbdeed are left alone by you. If you rub it down their throat time and again, or use official places that should be left alone by religion (for example the armed services, public school, courts, the parliament) for your preachings and confessions, then expect anger from those not seeing why they should sit still and just give up the neutrality of these places while they do not share your views anyway. Same is true for the private sphere of people, if you penetrate it, you are the aggressor, and it is the right of the attacked to defend himself against your invasion.

It is like advertising via paper mail. The occasional advert in your mailbox at the door, is one thing. If you need to take out an armload of paper every m ornming and throw it away, then that is something different.

It is like a birthday celebraiuton of neighbours. If they do it once a season, good neighbours will not complain. If the throw a party every weekend and into the night, conflict is ahead.

It is like the radio I love as a metaphor. If you need to ask your neighbours time and gain to be mor esilent, you sooner or later will be verxy an gryx abiut their overstepping of borders at your expense.

Total freedom you can have when you live all alone on a island where there is nobody else.

And if there were a religious sect claiming it is it's duty and part of its religion to missionise and actively approach others instead of waiting untiol others approach it and of curiosity ask it, this would ne no excuse either. In a secular society, such a special status for it must not be accepted. A religion claiming that its followers have the divine obligation to rob a bank every Thursday, will not be given that right and will not get away with that either. Man rights in form of the lawcode of tghr state we live in, comkes before claimed rights by relgious cults. Maybe not in theocray and in Islam. But we are neither theocracy nor Islamic, and I will set up a fight any day to prevent that we fall this deep again. We have been there. It was not pleasant time for European people. The freedoms we have today, the rights, the knowledge, the diversity of arts, sine and culture, all did emerge not because religion fostered this, but was won in bitter fighting and dear suffering against the bitter resistance of religion. Our forefathers, generations of them, must turn in their graves if we would throw these precious gains away now, needlessly, without reason - on behalf of religion'S claims for wanting a special status again. They fought for centuries to take that special status away from it, and where it had it, it abused it terribly, and in parts of the world still does so.

That'S what I like about Jews and Buddhists. They do not try to actively missionise.

Surely you're not saying people should keep silent about that?

If it is the inappropriate time or the inappropriate place they chose, you sure can bet I will tell them to shut the hell up. And if they continue to bopther me or others again and again, I will become very aggressive if needed. Occasionally over the years, very rarely in recent years, missonaries of this or that sect found themselves on my doorstep and making a mistake, ringing the bell and telling me they want to talk with me about their God. I doubt they have good memories of meeting me. :up: I recommend leaving confessing your faith to temples, books, or dedicated TV stations. In America their seem to be plenty of the latter. The secular nature of our society I want to see staying intact, and unbeleaguered. Islam does not follow that, and I am a strong enemy to it. I see other religions overstepping the lines and wanting to change the society and state according to their faith not any different.

I think you are looking at an extreme scenario here. It's just not going to happen. Not in a democratic state with freedom of expression and a diverse mix of viewpoints. Especially in the USA. To many people with guns.:haha: Nor in my country, Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that if a country that already has separation of Church and State were to allow this to happen, religion playing a role in government, then something is very wrong in that country.
Formally, Germany is a secular state, in practice it unfortunately is not, in fact the state heavily assists the churches, and that is the reason why the Germany Catholic church is the richest national Catholic church in all the world, and in almost no other country it enjoys so far-leading exceptions from laws and tax duties. Most foreigners do not know this, but Germany has mandatory church taxes. Additionally, the state throws property and influence after it by using public tax money to build social institutions like hospitals and social offices of any kind, and runs them financially, but then allows the church to add some 5-10% of the building and maintenance costs and for that hand all property and management authority over to the church which then can claim it its own. And people like me, certainly no friends of the church, are helpless and still must pay with parts of our money for this conspirative acting! I am no church member and I am confessing enemy to the churches -. and still by state'S laws get forced to throw money after them and boost their influence and property, law and tax evasion and diplomatic special status!

Additionally, under the impression of mobbing and threatening of Islam in the West who always seems to be on rampage over some recent offence it suffered, not only did EU law criminalise the criticism of religion and especially Islam by making it an offence according to anti-discrimination and anti-hate-speech laws, but while the Catholic church looses many members in the wake of scandals and stories about widespread pedophilia its allies in poltiics - and that are not few - want to stop that by punishing those who leave the church with a mandatory penalty tax they have to pay for cultural or social issues then. Just weeks ago the Vatican also ruled that members feeling themselves as Christians but disagreeing with the church and its policies and thus leaving the church while seeing themselves still as Christians should be stripped of all benefits that in the end leave them "excommunicated" without calling it excommunication. Well, a modern mind of course will not be intimidated by this superstitous tool of powerpolitics, but it illustrates the mental attitude of the church, which is after power and control over people. The pope said it clearly hwen visiting the Us, pretty much ther first he said when heaving left the plane was that the primary duty of Catholics is obedience to The catholic church. Not to God's will. Not to Jesus' preachings. Not the ten commandements and not the spirit of the sermon on the mount. But to the church.

Takeda Shingen

10-23-12, 07:43 PM

Kptlt. Neuerburg

10-23-12, 07:55 PM

I am a non-religous person and I respect others of any faith reguardless of that persons religon I would treat that person as an equal.

u crank

10-23-12, 08:07 PM

That is fine as long as people not wanting to need to hear you or who got tired to tell you time and again to talk to somebody else and stop bothering them, indeed are left alone by you. If you rub it down their throat time and again, or use official places that should be left alone by religion (for example the armed services, public school, courts, the parliament) for your preachings and confessions, then expect anger from those not seeing why they should sit still and just give up the neutrality of these places while they do not share your views anyway. Same is true for the private sphere of people, if you penetrate it, you are the aggressor, and it is the right of the attacked to defend himself against your invasion.

Agreed, if the same rules apply for Atheists or any other group that voices an opinion. The Atheist Bus poster campaign would be included .

Total freedom you can have when you live all alone on a island where there is nobody else.

Sorry, but I already have that freedom. If you don't like it feel free to complain. :D

The secular nature of our society I want to see staying intact, and unbeleaguered.

The secular nature of society almost always refers to the separation of Church and State. As far as private citizens are concerned, freedom of choice, freedom of religion or lack of is the rule of law. I know of no laws that prevent individuals from doing missionary work. Your freedom is being able to ignore them. Or be rude to them. I just tell them "I'm not interested. Have a nice day."

Just weeks ago the Vatican also ruled that members feeling themselves as Christians but disagreeing with the church and its policies and thus leaving the church while seeing themselves still as Christians should be stripped of all benefits that in the end leave them "excommunicated" without calling it excommunication.

Yea, I got that deal many years ago. I'm okay with it. No hard feelings at all.

Stealhead

10-23-12, 08:33 PM

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

August

10-23-12, 08:42 PM

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

I've yet to read where Takeda tries that. The only one I see that is trying to take away rights is Skybird.

Takeda Shingen

10-23-12, 08:46 PM

@Takeda..... And you cant take away his right to complain about it either.

You can stomp around and say how much you hate it

:know:

EDIT

August beat me to it.

Tribesman

10-24-12, 02:02 AM

Most foreigners do not know this, but Germany has mandatory church taxes.
Same old rubbish same old lies, germany does not have mandatory church taxes, germany has church tax on people who choose to declare that they are a member of the church.

not only did EU law criminalise the criticism of religion and especially Islam by making it an offence according to anti-discrimination and anti-hate-speech laws,
Religion and the EU in one line, you know that is going to be a whopper he is telling.
After all if that ridiculous claim were true the rabid islamophobe would be serving a long term instead of writing here.

I see a pattern emerging, could it be said that militant atheists are exceptionally intolerant and are habitual in their divergence from the truth?
As such could it be said that they are no different from the nutty fundies who claim to be religious?

Betonov

10-24-12, 02:32 AM

I'll practice my faith where I please and when I please, thank you very much. A guest at our dinner table, or an observer at a resturaunt gets to watch us say grace.

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't deny you that. If I were a guest at your house I'd say grace with you. At least keep my mouth shut since I don't know how to say grace. If you were a guest at my house I'd give you time to say grace by yourself before starting to eat. Same for a restaurant.
Even a moderate religius table discussion would be fine with me.

But the moment you'd ask me why I don't embrace Jesus and the almighty lord I'd throw a plate in your head.

Skybird

10-24-12, 06:12 AM

I'll practice my faith where I please and when I please, thank you very much. A guest at our dinner table, or an observer at a resturaunt gets to watch us say grace. Don't like it, Skybird? Too bad. You can stomp around and say how much you hate it, and you constantly do on this forum, but you cannot take my rights. How I love civil liberties.

EDIT:

The funniest thing about it all, Skybird, is that you wish to establish your very narrow view of personal liberty by denying personal liberties to an enormous swath of people ranging from the religious to homosexuals to immigrants. It's hard to see someone like that in a positive light, but it is unfortunately the image that you choose for yourself. In many ways, I feel sorry for you. Your hatred of 'the other' is far too intense to accomodate understanding.

You remind me of a conflict I had with Steve two years ago. Steve defends freedom, and says he wants it, absolutely yes. I even believe him that. But by wanting that freedom, really, absolutely, by demanding absolute freedom indeed, he refuses to realise that by that he necessarily destroys freedom. Te the small limitations of freedom everybody has to accept when living in a social context in order to allow highest-possible ammount of freedom for all of the community, he called tyranny on the grounds of that it either is total and absolute freedom, or it is no freedom at all. And that, as I saw the issue with him, made him go into a deadlock mode he never managed to escape. ( Yes Steve, Popper and the tolerance paradoxon, what else (and you still have not solved it, I bet) ). By dealing in absolutes about freedom, he creates consequences that will finally destroy freedom. Still he probably correctly claims that he really wants freedom, and as I said, I believe him that. But ust having an ideal, is not good enough. One must also have sense for reality. But although he is not aware of it, in his way he choses he help to destroy it. And he got very angry when I time and again tried to make him aware of that contradiction, and he said I misunderstand it all, and distort it, and opportunistically ignore things, and it was about my manners, and style, and whatever. - Yeah, Steve, I know, and feel free to explain your differing view of it again. I can only base on how those events were perceived by me, and I must not see it like you do. I just want to explain something to Takeda, no intention to start that old fight with you again. So give your different opinion if you want, but I will not start to debate it all AGAIN with you.

With you, Takeda, it is not the same way, but it is a comparable thing. You claim one thing, that you are open and tolerant and not a fanatic believer and religion member and so on - but you do not care that in consequences of what you help to cause and trigger (maybe even in good intention), you help to install and also act on basis of double standards and expect the one side - atheists - to just sit still and put when religion claims more space at cost of their rights and freedoms, but when they defend themselves and secular society against this and angrily turn against those who all too naturally expect them to just give ground and live with it, you call that - well, what you call me. So, it is your double standards I take serious issue with.

I would still give you the benefit of doubt if you wouldn't have started to shoot those underhanded and unneeded sniping shots at me - do not deny you had aimed at me, just don't - even in situations were I had not been present until then and where religion was no hotly debated issue at all. You have started to see the atheist and Skybirdian crusade just in every thread and behind every corner, and although i did not react to those events every time and just left you alone I nevertheless certainly took note of it. And I draw consequences from that that affect my position towards and view of you.

But the truth is if you use my profile to list all threads started by me, you will find not one in the past months if not years where I started one over a religious or atheistic topic and created a mess. There are no threads on theologic confrontation started by me. I have even driven back the number of my critical Islam threads very considerably (though not to evade religious debates - I just ran out of empty bins to vomit into) . Check it yourself, I did two days ago and went back until January (Jim, no, Steve said the links do not work, I do not know why, so use the stats page from my profile).

But I certainly reserve the right that if somebody takes his right to have religious views put into a thread, I by the same right give counter-views and ask it some questions about itself - and for some religious people, even this often already is too much, and is an offense. Well, so be it, let them be offended, its free, its is no health hazard, its fun for the whole family and costs you no dime.

I do not even necessarily "get triggered" when somebody says "I believe this and that" as long as he makes clear that this is his private thing, hell, occasionally I even describe my own views on for example cosmology, but I make it clear, always, that these views are my approach on things, and I often put them in form of questions, because I know we can not have ultimate certainty on anything. Science does not claim ultimate certainty. Religion does so. Just when people, start to imply generalisations of their religious beliefs all too naturally as if those believing different do not exist or are just some blind poor dogs who must be helped out of their misery, I start to feel anger rising over this arrogance. The worst offence a religious person can tell a person not sharing his belief, is "But Jesus still loves you", or "I still include you in my prayers" or something like that That is the climax of inherent haughtiness and self-rightousness. It tells the other that he just is too small and too dumb as to see how wellmeaning one's own religion is towards him. You want to pray for me? Okay, just do it, costs me nothing and it is your lifetime. Just don't bother me with it and don't go boasting with it. You could as well calculate my horoscope. I'm not interested.

I had a talk about comparable topics some weeks ago with a girl friend of mine, whom I know since long, and she made an interesting comparison to all this (she never is in this forum, but occasionally silently reads here, for she knows I am writing in here). She said it compares to sexist males who try to blackmail or lure or press a women into having sex with them, who approach her with sexual jokes, or by abusing their superior position, or a relation of the woman'S dependency, they give hints of sexual meaning, occasional touches with their hands, say something of obviously double meaning, and if the women in her uncomfortability starts to complain and fights them back in words and threaten to complain at a higher office, they make it appear as the hysteric reaction of a weak girl with low self-esteem who says No but in secret means Yes. "Can'T stand a joke, eh? Relay, I was kidding, don'T blow this beyond proportions. What you mean, its all harmless! Can'T see the joy in a shared weekend? Well, I make you see if only you let me". I think, that comparison matches perfectly, in some ways. This arrogance and haughtiness I see so very damn often, and many atheists do, and we are so sick and tired of being belittled like that. But when we fight back with determination, then people like you suddenly appear and accuse us of intolerance, arrogance, and missionising. Busses with Christzian slogans or Muslim slogans are all fine. But dare to do that with this: "God most likely does not exist" What a provocation! How dare they? Have the no shame and respect for anything anymore? It can'T get more distorted. Double standards par excellence. And you are surprised why we then react with growing anger and hostility?

It's better we avoid each other, you and me. Personal fights like this do no good for the forum.

Takeda Shingen

10-24-12, 06:21 AM

With you, Takeda, it is not the same way, but it is a comparable thing. You claim one thing, that you are open and tolerant and not a fanatic believer and relgion member and so on - but you do not care that in consequences of what you help to cause and trigger (maybe even in good intention), you help to install and also act on basis of double standards and expect the one side - atheists - to just sit still and put when religion claims more space at cost of their rights and freedoms, but when they defend themselves and secular society against this and angrily turn against those who all too naturally expect them to just give ground and live with it, you call that - well, what you call me.

You keep saying it, and I keep telling you to show me where I said it. You can't. Your argument is a lie, Skybird. Shame on you, if you can feel shame.

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't deny you that. If I were a guest at your house I'd say grace with you. At least keep my mouth shut since I don't know how to say grace. If you were a guest at my house I'd give you time to say grace by yourself before starting to eat. Same for a restaurant.
Even a moderate religius table discussion would be fine with me.

But the moment you'd ask me why I don't embrace Jesus and the almighty lord I'd throw a plate in your head.

I don't make it my business to proselytise to guests, strangers or people I meet on the street or internet forum. Contrary to what you are reading from Skybird, I did not and have not ever in my 13 years on this forum put my rights above any other. I simply ask to be treated with the same respect that I show to others. Some people have a problem with that.

TarJak

10-24-12, 07:00 AM

There is of course a 3rd option which I rarely see used and that is to simply ignore one another and not react to any baiting from either side of the argument. But then that might be boring to some.

Takeda Shingen

10-24-12, 07:09 AM

I think that if we all went around treating others with the type of respect that we want to see given to ourselves, there wouldn't be a need to go around ignoring each other. And I think that was the OP's intent in making this thread.

FYI, I didn't vote either.

Sailor Steve

10-24-12, 08:31 AM

You remind me of a conflict I had with Steve two years ago. Steve defends freedom, and says he wants it, absolutely yes. I even believe him that. But by wanting that freedom, really, absolutely, by demanding absolute freedom indeed, he refuses to realise that by that he necessarily destroys freedom.
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you. I said at the time that what I said was meant to be a starting point, and that I knew full well that nothing is absolute and something always has to yield, yet to this day you ignore everything else I said on the subject.

You also refused to discuss the idea that you wanted just the opposite: to remove freedom in the name of protecting it, which is what absolutists always do in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

It's easy to "win" an argument when you ignore what the other guy said and only argue against what you want him to have said.

I just want to explain something to Takeda, no intention to start that old fight with you again. So give your different opinion if you want, but I will not start to debate it all AGAIN with you.
This is the second time in two days that you've picked a fight and then claimed you didn't want to fight. That makes you dishonest. Deny that if you will, but it seems that you only feel you can "win" if you cheat. So first you lie, then you cheat. What's next? For me debating isn't about "winning", it's about discussing all the options. For you it seems to be about proving that you're right, and not much else.

I'll leave you with two quotes, both from Joseph Joubert, and both lessons you desperately need to learn.

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress.

Fubar2Niner

10-24-12, 08:35 AM

It's easy to "win" an argument when you ignore what the other guy said and only argue against what you want him to have said.

Hmmm..... reminds me of tory politicians, but that's another thread :03:

joea

10-24-12, 08:57 AM

Here are some good links:

First Link: Toxic Atheism Drives People Apart/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/toxic_atheism_drives_people_apart/)

So I started small, asking them to consider that diversity of thought and background fosters an environment where discourse thrives, where ideas are exchanged, and where we learn from one another.

I was stonewalled: “We have the superior perspective; everyone else is lost,” said the woman with a flick of her hand that suggested she was swatting at an invisible mosquito.

As a former Evangelical Christian, these words were hauntingly familiar, and they represented a kind of sure-handed certainty and dismissal — a kind of fundamentalist thinking, really — that I’d hoped to leave behind with my “born again” beliefs. Quote:
Achieving a more cooperative world will require a dramatic change in how both atheists and the religious talk about atheism and religion. The problems of religious fundamentalism are apparent, and have already been responded to by many individuals far more qualified to do so than I. But what of atheism’s antipluralism voices, like Sam Harris, who has said that “talk about the dangers of ‘Islamophobia’” (discrimination or bias against Muslims or those who are perceived as being Muslim, which is a widely recognized, well-documented phenomenon in countries like the United States, United Kingdom and Australia) is “deluded”?

...

I believe that this so-called New Atheism — the kind that singles out the religious lives of others as its No. 1 target — is toxic, misdirected, and wasteful. Disengaged or antagonistic atheism weakens our community’s claim that an ethical life is possible without a belief in God, supplanting this with an alienating narrative that both distracts us from investing in community-building efforts of our own and prevents us from accomplishing anything outside of our small community.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/01/from-faitheist-to-fundagnostical/

It is my goal, and the goal of the Skeptics Society (http://www.skeptic.com/), to educate as many people as possible about the power and wonders of science and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems. As such, we need as many people as we can get on board with a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere … pick your battle). My concern is that if we insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, we have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from our project.
Sometimes religion is the problem — and when it is let’s not hesitate to call it out. I did so myself on the day before Thanksgiving on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show in a debate with Dinesh D’Souza (http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=e28a84d7-ddbc-46ac-9f72-30ee8ca6edae) when Hewitt insisted that we thank God for our abundance and that believing in God leads to a prosperous nation like America. I pointed out — without accommodationism, faitheism, or fundagnosticalism — that 99% of everyone in Peru is Christian and yet they are dirt poor. Why? Because of warring political factions, governmental corruption, lack of education, resource depletion, currency debasement, inflation, and especially the lack of property rights and the rule of law.
So let’s not accommodate or pander in those areas where religion is clearly a problem or unmistakably mistaken. But not all (or even very many) social problems are caused by religion, so let’s pick our battles carefully and choose our strategies wisely.

Gotta say as a religious person, I not only have atheist friends I am sometimes more comfortable with them than with many religious people - an advantage of living in Europe-so paradoxically I can understand this fellow. Maybe the problem is not belief vs. unbelief but something else?

Skybird

10-24-12, 09:13 AM

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you. I said at the time that what I said was meant to be a starting point, and that I knew full well that nothing is absolute and something always has to yield, yet to this day you ignore everything else I said on the subject.

You also refused to discuss the idea that you wanted just the opposite: to remove freedom in the name of protecting it, which is what absolutists always do in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

It's easy to "win" an argument when you ignore what the other guy said and only argue against what you want him to have said.

See what I mean? :03: Back then you argued time and again to me that if I will to limit individual freedom slightly in an attempt to see for best total amount of freedom possible for all, I necessarily by that "remove freedom in the name of protecting it" (and you meant that as destroying freedom completely, not just limiting it slightly), as you just have put it ONCE AGAIN in your own words. That illustrates a.) your concept of freedom as being an "all or nothing at all" kind of thing (which opposes your claim that you "knew full well that nothing is absolute and something always has to yield"), and b.) that until today you have not managed to get that self-contradiction in your thinking, this incongurence between your intention and the result your proposal would (and does) acchieve. I know you mean it well and want to defend freedom. But you just don't get the self-contradiction in your reasoning and resulting argument/acting, you just don't get it. You're deadlocked there, sticking to an absolute and total understanding of freedom where you claim by your words - please note, finally: I am perfectly aware of that and was aware back then and always were! - you have no absolute definition of freedom at all and knew it were a relative quality in a social community. This incongruence in your self-description and your reasoning is what I always have called "your self-contradiction". I tried to illustrate that by Popper'S tolerance paradoxon. You do not even react to the fact that the paradoxon indeed is a paradoxon, while telling me you knew it is paradoxon, but then fall for it, and in full!

That is so - well, that is so "you"! :) I could pull my hairs out over this. In a way it is funny. But then, considering what it is about and what is at stakes, it is not.

And also note this: that I believe you and always have believed you when you implied or said you mean it well and want freedom defended. I just refuse to take that as the final word, the ultimate solution of the paradoxon, while you seem to live by the rule that it is right that. Still, the self-contradiction in your ways remains, as I see it, with you not being aware of that.

Can we accept, pleaaaazzze, this difference that exists between us without needing to fight over it AGAIN, endlessly, repeatedly? We will not solve it, it seems.

Skybird

10-24-12, 09:26 AM

Second link: From Faitheist to Fundagnostical (http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/01/from-faitheist-to-fundagnostical/)

Gotta say as a religious person, I not only have atheist friends I am sometimes more comfortable with them than with many religious people - an advantage of living in Europe-so paradoxically I can understand this fellow. Maybe the problem is not belief vs. unbelief but something else?
It seems I would have little problems with that guy, and him little problems with me, joea. In fact, I assume I have dealt with more believing Christians in my life than I am aware of, and just don't know because neither them nor me ever made such questions an issue or topic, nor did we fell under their spell.

It seems it is not needed to do so, to constantly tell others what one is and what one believes and that the other should try it, which is my point when saying: keep thy religion to thyself, keep it in your cabin, in your heart, don't bother others or the world with it, your belief is intimate a relation you chose to maintain between yourself and the object you have chosen to believe in. Okay, do so. No problem if you do not bother others with it. I sometimes sing under the shower. Because I know at the time I do that I am almost alone in all the house. and when I am naked in my flat, I do so when I am sure that indeed I am all alone. I do not bother guests with that sight.

Indeed, the problem may not be belief versus unbelief, but something else. I would identify it like this: the claim to be given more status and control and prestige and power and control on basis of one's beliefs, than these beliefs objectively can justify, since they are only beliefs. The claim that the other must become similiar to oneself, and must believe the same things like oneself. The claim that one may chnage the rules of secular and free society on behalf of religious ideology.

Sailor Steve

10-24-12, 09:28 AM

See what I mean? :03:
And you're doing it again! Back then I said that nothing is absolute, and I was willing to discuss it. You only attacked one thing I said and ignored the rest. What you're attacking now is only a small part of what I said. You only address a small part. This makes you a cheat.

That is so - well, that is so "you"! :) I could pull my hairs out over this. In a way it is funny. But then, considering what it is about and what is at stakes, it is not.

You keep attacking, and fighting, while I would like to have a real discussion. You don't seem capable of that. Your whole tirade here is just that. I say what I mean, and you say I don't really mean that, but you need to address what I really mean even if I can't see it. You ignore what I say, or dismiss it, and insist that you know what I mean better than I do. That's just dishonest on your part, and it seems to be all you know how to do.

Can we accept, pleaaaazzze, this difference that exists between us without needing to fight over it AGAIN, endlessly, repeatedly? We will not solve it, it seems.
So you bring up an old argument for no apparent reason, make all your points all over again, and then ask for a halt?

That's like hitting someone over the head with a bat, and when they don't die, or fall down, but instead turn to face you, you drop the bat, hold up your hands and say "Wait! I don't want to fight!"

That smacks of cowardice.

joea

10-24-12, 10:06 AM

It seems I would have little problems with that guy, and him little problems with me, joea. In fact, I assume I have dealt with more believing Christians in my life than I am aware of, and just don't know because neither them nor me ever made such questions an issue or topic, nor did we fell under their spell.

It seems it is not needed to do so, to constantly tell others what one is and what one believes and that the other should try it, which is my point when saying: keep thy religion to thyself, keep it in your cabin, in your heart, don't bother others or the world with it, your belief is intimate a relation you chose to maintain between yourself and the object you have chosen to believe in. Okay, do so. No problem if you do not bother others with it. I sometimes sing under the shower. Because I know at the time I do that I am almost alone in all the house. and when I am naked in my flat, I do so when I am sure that indeed I am all alone. I do not bother guests with that sight.

Indeed, the problem may not be belief versus unbelief, but something else. I would identify it like this: the claim to be given more status and control and prestige and power and control on basis of one's beliefs, than these beliefs objectively can justify, since they are only beliefs. The claim that the other must become similiar to oneself, and must believe the same things like oneself. The claim that one may chnage the rules of secular and free society on

Good to know, and agree btw I misquoted that last line:

Gotta say as a religious person, I not only have atheist friends I am sometimes more comfortable with them than with many religious people - an advantage of living in Europe-so paradoxically I can understand this fellow. Maybe the problem is not belief vs. unbelief but something else?

That was from me-I'll fix the quote in the article in case someone actually clicks on the link. You and Steve may continue your argument. :03: