Atheists: more hated than gays and muslims

[Wesley Dodds]

This is interesting:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

It has to be true. They asked, like, 2000 people.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below 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.

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

[Michael P]

Not suprising. Theistic and atheistic evangelicals have hardly been polite in going about the public debate, and there are a lot more theists than atheists.

[lonewolf23k]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.

[spideyrules99]

I dont get up into a holy rollers face about there being no god until they get in to mine about how I am going to go to hell and need to be saved. People can think what they want. When they push it I push back.

[Michael P]

Thanks for proving my point, fellas.

[BlairH]

This is just stupid.

"I hate atheists more than I hate them gays and Muslims"

And I hate Doctor Pepper almost as much as I hate wardrobes.

[Wesley Dodds]

"I hate atheists more than I hate them gays and Muslims"

It's so unfair. Religious people are the ones who are always blowing shit up, not atheists.

[Dan Apodaca]

And I hate Doctor Pepper almost as much as I hate wardrobes.

This is how I know you're always wrong about everything. Dr. Pepper is the perfect solution to all problems.

[howyadoin]

Somehow this makes me proud to be an atheist.

[Dan Apodaca]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.

You're right. Let me just go take all the atheistic sentiments off of our national currency, tell the president to stop talking about being an atheist so much, and take all the athiest literature out of every hotel in America.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with so much athiest bullying.

[Violently Apathetic]

Thankfully I'm a Secular Humanist, so nobody hates me, nope nope....*looks shifty*

[howyadoin]

You're right. Let me just go take all the atheistic sentiments off of our national currency, tell the president to stop talking about being an atheist so much, and take all the athiest literature out of every hotel in America.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with so much athiest bullying.I keep forgetting what an oppressed minority Christians are in America.

[spideyrules99]

The most dumbass thing I have ever heard is when A lady told me this.
"You hate god so much but you have no problems spending money that says in god we trust." I hated that. If you are going to argue be smart about it.

[Sanagi]

It's all because of Donald Pleasance in The Fantastic Voyage. Ruined it for everyone.

[Chiasm]

Somehow this makes me proud to be an atheist.

Me too, its always comforting to know that the evangelicals despise me so. :)

[Chiasm]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.

Only time I do that is when they either show up at my door and demand to come into my house to bible thump at me or when I'm minding my own business at work and some thumper decides its his turn to try and save my soul and convert me.

[howyadoin]

Only time I do that is when they either show up at my door and demand to come into my house to bible thump at me or when I'm minding my own business at work and some thumper decides its his turn to try and save my soul and convert me.I've had that happen dozens of times.

[BlairH]

It's based on a bloody telephone survey! :D (points and laughs)

I also don't believe 2000 people is an adequate sample size. I'd like to see some of their raw unprocessed data (and more information about how the sample was chosen) rather than their conclusions.

[Valmore]

Dr. Pepper is the perfect solution to all problems.

And Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper!

And I don't hate atheists - that wouldn't be very Christian of me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I've had that happen dozens of times.

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet. I had that happen once.

Remarkably, I've never heard of athiests going door to door to preach the word, yet we're all supposed to accept it is the right of Christians to go door to door bothering folks with their Word.

As to the sheep comment from lonewolf, I don't tell the religious they are sheep, as sheep have the sense to not waste time with religion.

[Spike-X]

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet.

I'd be tempted to answer with, "No...where was the last place you left him?"

[spideyrules99]

I had a guy ask if I found Jesus. I told him no and if he sees the son of a bitch to let me know cause he owes me 10 bucks.

He was mad

[Joseph Sun]

atheists arent hated. probably a fabricated study

[Charles RB]

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet. I had that happen once.

Did he look down the sofa for Jesus? When you lose something, it's nearly always there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'd be tempted to answer with, "No...where was the last place you left him?"

I replied to the jerk "I haven't been looking for him, but I don't think he's in here."

[Night]

It's interesting that you took the article and assumed then that "Atheists: more hated than gays and muslims" when nowhere in the article did it state whether the Americans were even asked.

Let’s go to what was mentioned,

“rated below …. in sharing vision of American society” duh… It’s easier for people the believe in one god to find commonalties with people who believe in another god… especially if the two religions share roots… Ie scriptures found in the Torah are building blocks Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and seems to be used even in Hindu. They often have rituals, observances, and moral laws in common. There are also branches of one religion that tend to be very much like another religion. Then you have a group that doesn’t believe in any of it. Yes, they’re going to have less in common… it’s natural.

The marriage issue: lonewolf23k and spideyrules99 proved that if you put a theist and an atheist in a room together that they’re going to be tension. Marriages these days have enough to break them without this tension and it’s a core tension that needs to be resolved if the marriage is going to work. With other religions there is a chance for “religious barter” … “ok we won’t eat pigs for you if we don’t eat cows for me” At least in the single Christian rhelm… It happens too many times to be coincidence when a devout Christian tries to date an atheist one (or more) of three things tends happen… 1) the relationship ends in disaster with the Christian in spiritual pain, 2) the Christian is tempted to the point of at least becoming less devout, or 3) the atheist gets saved… now if 3 were the norm, people would be pushing single Christians to get involved with atheists. Christians believe that two people who get married become one flesh, and the one flesh cannot be both connected to a god and not connected to a god. Personally, I think one should marry within faith… whatever it is and I don’t personally believe that marring of another faith is different faith except for what I see of couples who try.

As for “American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god” we can’t even get atheists to believe that they have a religion of any kind or anything like a religion, or anything that even resembles any kind of hint of a religion or even belief system. So why are they asking for acceptance of something they don’t have? I’m just saying y’all need to get with your PR people and develop a new term.

As for “do you hate atheists more?” that’s a loaded question… at least for a Christian, because you’re not supposed to hate anyone. Right guys?

[JeffreyWKramer]

As for “American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god” we can’t even get atheists to believe that they have a religion of any kind or anything like a religion, or anything that even resembles any kind of hint of a religion or even belief system. So why are they asking for acceptance of something they don’t have? I’m just saying y’all need to get with your PR people and develop a new term.

Of course athiests have a belief system. Everyone has a belief system, regardless how individualized or ritualilzed, or how vague or well-articulated it might be.

What athiests don't have is a religion.

[Gilda Dent]

The flaw here is that they seem to be basing the "more hated" label on how people rated them on "sharing their vision of American society" and whether they'd want their children to marry them.

All this establishes is how many people disapprove of atheists for these reasons, not how strongly they feel about it.

There was an episode of The West Wing that dealt with this approval/degree issue in polling. A poll by the Q guy indicated that a huge majority of Americans favored an amendment banning flag burning. Marlee Matlin's character conducted another poll, and she discovered that, though they favored it, they didn't care very much.

I rather suspect something similar is going on here. There may be fewer people who disapprove of gays, but there is among many in that group a very intense hatred that I don't sense being aimed at atheists. There may be, I don't know for sure, but I sure haven't seen it.

And wanting a child to marry within one's religion is a very common desire, one I think is probably common to most religions. Since atheism is outside of all religions, all of those people who want their daughters to marry in their religion will disapprove of marrying an atheist. This doesn't, however, mean that one disapproves of atheists in general, and definitely doesn't indicate anything close to hatred. Hatred may be there, but this isn't an indicator.

Gilda, who finds pushy people annoying, regarldless of their spiritual beliefs.

[Wesley Dodds]

It's interesting that you took the article and assumed then that "Atheists: more hated than gays and muslims" when nowhere in the article did it state whether the Americans were even asked.

I think that's a pretty fair characterisation of atheists being the group people are least likely to let their children marry.

[Solaris]

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet. I had that happen once.

...


So... did you turn to him and ask, "Why---did he get flushed down the drain?"



Or the good alternate answer, "No... have you found 'Gayness' yet?" and eye him suggestively while giving yourself an extra *tap*.



:D Yes, I'm evil. :evilsmile




I was about to say that I cannot BELIEVE someone asked you that at a URINAL WHILE you were taking a PISS... but then I stopped, and thought, "You know, this doesn't surprise me one bit."

[StoneGold]

Or the good alternate answer, "No... have you found 'Gayness' yet?" and eye him suggestively while giving yourself an extra *tap*.

Or if you really want to mess with his head, just rape him right there in the bathroom. And while he's balled up crying in the handicap stall, turn to him and yell, in your best Edward G. Robinson voice, "Where's your messiah now!"

[spoon_jenkins]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.
You're joking, right? Cause I'm an atheist, and I don't go around calling religious people sheep. (Actually, in a lot of situations I keep quiet about my atheism, because like the the poll suggests, I think atheists are looked down upon.) I think that's kind of lame actually. Being an atheist and being a dickhead are two different characteristics. You might as well just assume all Armenians are assholes or something.

[Solaris]

Or if you really want to mess with his head, just rape him right there in the bathroom. And while he's balled up crying in the handicap stall, turn to him and yell, in your best Edward G. Robinson voice, "Where's your messiah now!"


Damn, you are one sick puppy. Ick.

[StoneGold]

Damn, you are one sick puppy. Ick.
I thought the Edward G. Robinson part was particularly inspired.


Now you know why I used myself in the avatar contest.

[Charles RB]

The flaw here is that they seem to be basing the "more hated" label on how people rated them on "sharing their vision of American society" and whether they'd want their children to marry them.

I'd assume that if someone doesn't want me to marry their children because I'm [Insert Group Here], they hate [Insert Group Here]. At the very least, they're making some insulting assumptions about me.

[Sir Tim Drake]

The most dumbass thing I have ever heard is when A lady told me this.
"You hate god so much but you have no problems spending money that says in god we trust." I hated that. If you are going to argue be smart about it.

As any fool can plainly see (Groo: "I can plainly see that!"), I do have a problem with spending currency that carries a statement of religious belief. But I have to spend that money anyway because there's no alternative. I hope the woman was just arguing in bad faith, and didn't seriously think this was an argument.

[Gilda Dent]

I'd assume that if someone doesn't want me to marry their children because I'm [Insert Group Here], they hate [Insert Group Here]. At the very least, they're making some insulting assumptions about me.

I disagree. I think it's more a case of the people not wanting their children to marry someone who is not X. In this case, the same religion. It doesn't indicate a strong feeling of animosity towards that group necessarily. The preference for marrying within the religion may be mild to severe, which was my point. The poll didn't ask how strongly they felt.

Gilda

[Gumbo Maximillian]

I don't think athiests are more hated than gays or muslims, I mean gay people can still be beat to death for being gay, I can't recall that happening on the same number to athiests.

And we bombed the ell' out of the muslims.

Now athiests might not be the most highly thought of group but that does not translate to most hated necessarily.

[Dan Apodaca]

Or if you really want to mess with his head, just rape him right there in the bathroom. And while he's balled up crying in the handicap stall, turn to him and yell, in your best Edward G. Robinson voice, "Where's your messiah now!"

God, that was funny.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

God, that was funny.

Is it sad that I thought the same thing?

[Dan Apodaca]

Is it sad that I thought the same thing?

When I'm the other person involved, the answer is: Probably, yes.

[Iangould]

It's based on a bloody telephone survey! :D (points and laughs)

I also don't believe 2000 people is an adequate sample size. I'd like to see some of their raw unprocessed data (and more information about how the sample was chosen) rather than their conclusions.

2000 is quite an adequate sample for a nation-wide sample in the US provided it's properly designed.

[Fabian]

I believe it. I have felt more discrimination because of my atheism than because I belong to a minority. Everyone thinks people belong to a Christian denomination unless they look Middle Eastern and they expect me ot go allong with their rituals or feel comfortable when they say grace. When I mention I am an atheist, I get a bunch of dirty looks.

I remember my graduation when I wouldn't stand for the pledge of allegiance or when the principle asked for ammoment of silence to thank God I was yelled at for sitting down and threatened with them taking away my diploma if I keep disrupting the ceremony,

[Poka Lola Luau]

They'd rather have their children marry a gay person than an atheist? I wonder what the results would be if given the choice between outspoken gay and outspoken atheist. Who would they find more annoying at Thanksgiving dinner?

.

[Iangould]

They'd rather have their children marry a gay person than an atheist? I wonder what the results would be if given the choice between outspoken gay and outspoken atheist. Who would they find more annoying at Thanksgiving dinner?


So does this mean the majority of Christians would accept their child entering into a gay marriage?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I was about to say that I cannot BELIEVE someone asked you that at a URINAL WHILE you were taking a PISS... but then I stopped, and thought, "You know, this doesn't surprise me one bit."

I cannot believe Kramer just didn't turn and face him when someone was talking to him.

It's the polite thing to do.

And I'd love to see someone turn the other cheek once you've just pissed on them.

[Poka Lola Luau]

double post

[Poka Lola Luau]

I remember my graduation when I wouldn't stand for the pledge of allegiance or when the principle asked for ammoment of silence to thank God I was yelled at for sitting down and threatened with them taking away my diploma if I keep disrupting the ceremony,

I had a fourth grade teacher that once made us sing Swing Lo, Sweet Chariot and Amazing Grace before we went to lunch. We were old enough to know that she wasn't allowed to do that in public school. I wouldn't be surprised if she noted who was mumbling about it and who wasn't singing. She was strict and it could have affected grades. This is why religion should be kept out of public schools.

[Noah Johnson]

I also don't believe 2000 people is an adequate sample size.
That's nice. The science of statistics believes differently.

You know when we talk about right-wingers being anti-science? This is the stuff we're referring to. This odd belief that personal opinion can, when appropriate, trump fact.

[howyadoin]

That's nice. The science of statistics believes differently.Wouldn't that depend entirely on how you choose your sample?



(I should point out that I barely passed Introductory Stats, but still...)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You know when we talk about right-wingers being anti-science? This is the stuff we're referring to. This odd belief that personal opinion can, when appropriate, trump fact.

Also:

That a piece of secondary evidence, such as the bible, makes somthing fact.

That a theory invented to reach a desired outcome, makes somthing a certified scientific theory.

That atheists are as one.

That God wanted Terry Schivaro to live.


but bugger it all man, why don't we all team up, and find the bastard who invented the 'I before E, except after C' rule.
How the hell is it a rule?
There are so many exceptions, why bother teaching it except to screw with young and impressionable minds?

[Perry Holley]

"Where's your messiah now!"http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/hiruma_tenken/wiyg.jpg

[Tages]

I've been asked by strangers if I've found Jesus before. A simple "Yes" tends to stem any further questions.

For non-Christians I'd recommend a wittier response such as following the above with "...and he's an excellent bowler."

[Chiasm]

Putting these lyrics here just because they are funny and a bit applicable to the thread. Song is by the Bloodhound Gang.

"Hell Yeah"

Alright now boys and girls we've got another story for you now!
We want to introduce to you another friend of the Bible!

Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah

If I were God there would be no explicit sex on T.V.
Like little Opie eating pie when he made it with Aunt Bea

If I were God thou shall not worship false Billy Idols
And thou shall add the Book Of Flavor Flav to the Bible
Thou shall make fun of Hindus thou shall not make a "Speed 2"
If I were God that's what I'd do Heavens no

Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah

If I were God I'd get a bunch of slaves to do everything
Norwegian lesbians that feed me grapes and know how to sing

If I were God thou shall not wear tube socks with Flip-Flops
Thou shall sit and thou shall spin thou shall even wife swap
Thou shall resist the Olsen Twins, thou shall not cut "Footloose"
If I were God that's what I'd do, Heavens no

Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah
Hell yeah

And when they nail my pimpled ass to the cross
I'll tell them I found Jesus that should throw them off
He goes by the name Jesus (Hey Zeus) and steals hubcaps from cars
Oh Jesus can I borrow your crowbar?
To pry these God damn nails out they're beginning to hurt
Crucified and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
"I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" I'll sing as I'm flogged
Yeah that's what I would do if I were God
So vote for me for Savior and you'll go to Heaven
Your lame duck Lord is like Kevin Spacey in "Seven"
With creepy threats of H-E-Double-Hockey-Stick
You just can't teach an old God new tricks
But would I be a good Messiah with my low self-esteem?
If I don't believe in myself would that be blasphemy?
Just sport some crummy "holier than thou" facade
Yeah that's what I would do if I were God

[Typo Lad]

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet.

I've told you, the only acceptible answers are:

"Have you tried the stalls?"

and

"How did you know that was what I called it?"

[milhouse123321]

High fives for bein an athiest!!! YESS!!!

[Iangould]

That's nice. The science of statistics believes differently.

You know when we talk about right-wingers being anti-science? This is the stuff we're referring to. This odd belief that personal opinion can, when appropriate, trump fact.

Not *just* personal opinion - personal opinion when guided and illuminated by the Sacred Truths of Conservatism.

[Dizzy D]

Wouldn't that depend entirely on how you choose your sample?



(I should point out that I barely passed Introductory Stats, but still...)

That has nothing to do with the size of your sample. It is another important factor though. If you choose your test-population non-randomly then no size will ever be large enough.

[Dennis K]

What about gay muslims?

[west3man]

This is interesting:

It has to be true. They asked, like, 2000 people.


http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
Kinda supports my point that coming out as a non-theist (distinct from "atheist") sometimes take a lot of guts.

[cable guy]

I'm shocked at these poll results.

As a matter of fact, I thought it was a load crap at first. I figured people were scared they would be labled as bigots or something.

But then listening to some people that are Atheist saying they get ridiculed; what else can I say. I'm surprised. I know I don't feel that way.

[west3man]

Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.
I dont get up into a holy rollers face about there being no god until they get in to mine about how I am going to go to hell and need to be saved. People can think what they want. When they push it I push back.
I would've preferred lonewolf saying "maybe if so many Atheists would stop being dicks..." but I thought both of the above pretty much expressed a preference for tolerance except for the times when someone's being obnoxious. Makes sense to me. I didn't find either statement terribly rude.

While I agree with the last lines of both posts, I try not to consider it obnoxious or rude for someone to try to enlighten me, from their perspective - religious or otherwise. I tend to bristle at the presumption that one's strong opinion is the equivalent of objective fact, but when it comes to religion, I *kinda* give that a pass. Mostly, it comes down to delivery.

Tell me I'm gonna burn in Hell and you're gonna turn me off or piss me off. No haps.
Tell me only an idiot would believe in God and you're gonna turn me off or piss me off. No love.

Tell me you've got a different perspective you'd like to share with me, approaching and speaking to me in a respectful manner*, and we can probably talk about just about anything.

Again, it's about delivery, I guess. Whether they say it or not, people of certain faiths probably DO believe I will burn for all Eternity. But choosing not to say it... Hmm... Choosing not to say it with venom makes a helluva difference, for me, anyway.



* - of course, a lot of people have different ideas on what's respectful, but...

[HomerJay]

Please try to read this in it's entirety before you click the reply button:

A little background first...
I'm a Christian.
I'm not Catholic, I'm Lutheran. In fact I belong to the most laid-back "branch" of the Lutheran church, The United Church Of Christ. It's also the most tolerant as we're the only Christian church that officially recognizes same-sex unions (we have a few gay couples in our church, and had a baptism a few months ago with 2 mommies). The official UCC motto is "Jesus turned noone away, neither shall we." It's about the individual's relationship with God, and each church is governed by it's congregation, not some dude in Italy.

I think the reason that some members of a religious group look down upon atheists more than another religious group is because atheists are seen by many as "believing in nothing". Religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass, so people might think "no religion = no morals". I'd be lying if I said that I don't feel wary of athiests from time to time. I have definitely noticed that overt cynicism and athiesm are fairly common bedfellows (Note: I am NOT saying here that all atheists are cynical people). The only things that irritate me are some of the high-fiving and intellectual elitism that sometimes springs up when some athiests get together (it's in a few posts here in this thread too), as I'm sure the moral elitism by some Christians irritates athiests. Unlike some people, I do NOT think athiests are going to hell. I feel that even if you don't believe in Jesus, he believes in you.

People who say that religion has no place are dead wrong in my opinion. As I said before, religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass to find their way through life. The extent to which someone takes this moral compass or tries to impose it upon others is what matters. I'm a very firm believer in live-and-let-live as long as you aren't hurting anybody. I won't be a missionary if you won't ridicule me for believing in a higher power.

[Gaz]

Please try to read this in it's entirety before you click the reply button:

A little background first...
I'm a Christian.
I'm not Catholic, I'm Lutheran. In fact I belong to the most laid-back "branch" of the Lutheran church, The United Church Of Christ. It's also the most tolerant as we're the only Christian church that officially recognizes same-sex unions (we have a few gay couples in our church, and had a baptism a few months ago with 2 mommies). The official UCC motto is "Jesus turned noone away, neither shall we." It's about the individual's relationship with God, and each church is governed by it's congregation, not some dude in Italy.

I think the reason that some members of a religious group look down upon atheists more than another religious group is because atheists are seen by many as "believing in nothing". Religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass, so people might think "no religion = no morals". I'd be lying if I said that I don't feel wary of athiests from time to time. I have definitely noticed that overt cynicism and athiesm are fairly common bedfellows (Note: I am NOT saying here that all atheists are cynical people). The only things that irritate me are some of the high-fiving and intellectual elitism that sometimes springs up when some athiests get together (it's in a few posts here in this thread too), as I'm sure the moral elitism by some Christians irritates athiests. Unlike some people, I do NOT think athiests are going to hell. I feel that even if you don't believe in Jesus, he believes in you.
I was going to agree about the cynicism, except I thought about it, and I'm as likely to be idealistic as I am to be cynical. Depends on the situation...
You're dead right about the elitism thing. I try not to get on my high horse, unsuccessfully sometimes, but I tend to keep reasonably quiet then. I've also had to make that morality point occasionally. I have a sense of right and wrong based on harm. If no-one else is being harmed (and being offended that something exists is NOT harm) then it's fine. If not, then it's wrong. There's some grey, but that's the simple definition.


People who say that religion has no place are dead wrong in my opinion. As I said before, religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass to find their way through life. The extent to which someone takes this moral compass or tries to impose it upon others is what matters. I'm a very firm believer in live-and-let-live as long as you aren't hurting anybody. I won't be a missionary if you won't ridicule me for believing in a higher power.
Aw, but it's funny to ridicule! :p

Nah, I get you. But we can still poke fun, yes? And you can do so to us Godless heathens in return.

(And absolutely. Forcing anyone to do something against their will is wrong, by any definition anyway. And anything that prevents pain is good. The problem is when these get confused.)

[Ed Cunard]

Nice post, HomerJay.

[HomerJay]

Nice post, HomerJay.
Thanx, occasionally I have moments of clarity.

[Ed Cunard]

Thanx, occasionally I have moments of clarity.

So clear that this elitist atheist appreciates it!

[Wesley Dodds]

Religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass, so people might think "no religion = no morals". I'd be lying if I said that I don't feel wary of athiests from time to time.

That's a bit ironic, because a lot of atheists feel the same way about theists, for the opposite reason. What, if the sky God wasn't going to punish you, you'd all run around raping and killing?

Of course not. We don't need morality to come from God to be moral. I don't think it's even the primary reason -- the primary reason is out of mutual fear, and after that just because it's the right thing to do. If anything, God as a moral compass is a weaker reason to do the right thing.

[HomerJay]

That's a bit ironic, because a lot of atheists feel the same way about theists, for the opposite reason. What, if the sky God wasn't going to punish you, you'd all run around raping and killing?
You bring up an interesting quandry. What is it that compels human beings to "do the right thing"? In a spiritual and governmental (is that a word?) anarchy, would we even have a superego to govern our actions? I don't know exactly if a superego is something we're born with or it's something we develop based upon a standard of morality.
Someone send up the JWK signal.

If anything, God as a moral compass is a weaker reason to do the right thing.
If you read my post, never did I say what was "better". I'm disappointed to see that you were unable to do that.

[Shellhead]

HomerJay,

I do appreciate your thoughtfully expressed viewpoint. It seems very reasonable and diplomatic. So it pains me to say that I am a little *less* likely to trust somebody who believes in a supreme being.

Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of a god, including the attacks on 9/11, the crusades, and the bombings in Belfast. And I don't even know what the Bible's official position on slavery was, but it either wasn't good enough or it wasn't phrased strongly enough, because slavery is just wrong, and it shouldn't have persisted so many centuries after Christianity got started. Ultimately, the logical conclusion is that faith is just as likely to lead to destructive behavior as any other kind of belief, and perhaps faith even increases the probability of fanaticism.

If I believed in God, that would be the most important thing in my life. I mean, a supreme being who cares about me and will judge me and send me to heaven or hell for eternity? Of course I would want to make it happy and do everything that I'm told. And if I met people who didn't believe in my God, I would try really hard to convert them, so they don't go to hell. I don't understand these religious people who are able to rationalize terrorist attacks or holy wars, but I suppose if I belonged to a religion that endorsed the concept of jihad, I could smite the enemies of my faith with impunity.

But I don't believe in God, so this idea of faith in an invisible omnipotent creator that so many people disagree about is very strange to me. Once you believe in God, it would seem that you are capable of believing in anything supernatural, and that just throws everything scientific into doubt... even though so much of that science can produce consist and practical results, unlike religion.

So I don't trust religious people as much as I trust atheists, because I think that faith puts a big question mark behind the logic of their thinking, and their actions seem don't seem to consistently support their beliefs. The many permutations of faith dilute the credibility of each individual faith. And the fact that the popular faiths came along so much later than the original religions that it makes me doubt that any God ever talked to any of the founders of these modern faiths.

[K'Nort]

You're right. Let me just go take all the atheistic sentiments off of our national currency, tell the president to stop talking about being an atheist so much, and take all the athiest literature out of every hotel in America.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with so much athiest bullying.

The fact that the overall culture skews Christian in no way justifies (or should have any relationship to) one individual insulting another. Especially when the aggressor has no idea of the other individual's actual personal belief system and they are actually lashing out at stereotypes and past insults.

And that goes both ways.

[Danger Dude]

Thankfully I'm a Secular Humanist, so nobody hates me, nope nope....*looks shifty*

A what now?

[JeffreyWKramer]

You bring up an interesting quandry. What is it that compels human beings to "do the right thing"? In a spiritual and governmental (is that a word?) anarchy, would we even have a superego to govern our actions? I don't know exactly if a superego is something we're born with or it's something we develop based upon a standard of morality.
Someone send up the JWK signal.

Morality/superego/conscience develops via experience and learning; we are not born with any inherent sense of morality, but we learn it through experience and through observing the models around us (i.e., transmission of culture). Thus, as long as we have someone to learn from/observe, we are going to pick up some degree of morality. From there, moral development is a lifetime process, as are most aspects of learning. Experience fine-tunes the stuff we first learn, and either reinforces it, or fails to do so (in which case a person's moral concepts are likely to change to reflect new information).

Anyhow, the idea that morality is anything specifically derived from religion is nonsense. Some ideas are close to universal - do onto others, for example - and will be demonstrated by virtually any sane person. Others are instilled by the broad culture, of which religion is only a part. Others, you pick up as you go. Interestingly, if you leave out the issue of god(s) and such, the morality of most non-religious folk is remarkably like that of most religious folk. That's because the initial moral codes were not handed down by some divine figure, but rather were developed via common sense and practical reasoning - it didn't take long for early civilizations to figure out that working together gets one farther than working at odds with others, or that fucking others over pretty sets you up to get fucked over by someone else. People keep coming to these general principles not because of divine mandate, but simply by common sense, and they tend to get there whether or not they are religious, unless they grow up in a very deviant subculture which teaches a very atypical (and, almost always, dysfunctional) moral code. This is why all societies, regardless of specific religion, have come up with broadly similar systems of morality - some things work better than others.

[Danger Dude]

As for “do you hate atheists more?” that’s a loaded question… at least for a Christian, because you’re not supposed to hate anyone. Right guys?

Well, I'm thinking except for the Devil.

[JeffreyWKramer]

People who say that religion has no place are dead wrong in my opinion. As I said before, religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass to find their way through life.
Well, again, people would end up with some sort of moral compass regardless of whether they were religious, or what religion they followed, and most of the time, most of the specifics end up being remarkably similar. Me personally, I think it would be better for people to have a moral compass which is based more on demonstrable reality, on logic and reason and on fact than on superstition. Hopefully someday.

The extent to which someone takes this moral compass or tries to impose it upon others is what matters. I'm a very firm believer in live-and-let-live as long as you aren't hurting anybody. I won't be a missionary if you won't ridicule me for believing in a higher power.

The problem is, religious morality often does have a harmful effect. This is particularly the case with more fundamentalist religions. The anti-intellectual stances which go along with that mindset impede progress. Progress - true improvement in the human condition - has come from things like science and engineering and farming, not from prayer. So, when you have religions arguing against things like evolution and basic cosmology, you have a negative influence on society as a whole.

Moreover, almost all religions (Hinduism is something of an exception) instill an "us vs. them" mentality. Most faiths teach that theirs is the Truth, and all who believe differently are wrong, benighted, etc. to some degree. This contributes to social divisions, sectarianism, etc. of a sort which is not a good thing in the modern, global society reality. This problem isn't exclusive to religion, of course - really, clannishness is something to which we are genetically predisposed, and we have to work hard to resist those urges - but anything which contributes to the problem is, itself, a problem... and that includes religion. Ours is a world in which we can't afford to regard others as heretics, infidels, etc. We need to move past such ignorant prejudices for the sake of our growth - and, potentially, our survival - as a species.

[west3man]

I disagree. I think it's more a case of the people not wanting their children to marry someone who is not X. In this case, the same religion. It doesn't indicate a strong feeling of animosity towards that group necessarily. The preference for marrying within the religion may be mild to severe, which was my point. The poll didn't ask how strongly they felt.

GildaI've been trying to reconcile this with what you said in another thread. I think I kinda understand (but I'm also kinda sleepy).

Is it that you don't think "having something against Group X" is necessarily the same as "[having] a strong feeling of animosity toward that group?"


from the "i don't have anything against them, i just don't want her to date them" thread:

post #320 (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2728570&postcount=320)

"Not wanting your child to marry someone in group X means that you do have something against people in group X, and that thing is that you believe they would in some way bring something negative into your child's life. It doesn't necessarily indicate a general prejudice towards group X, or that you would take actions designed to prevent you child from marrying a person in group X, or any other discriminatory actions towards group X."

[K'Nort]

Well, again, people would end up with some sort of moral compass regardless of whether they were religious, or what religion they followed, and most of the time, most of the specifics end up being remarkably similar. Me personally, I think it would be better for people to have a moral compass which is based more on demonstrable reality, on logic and reason and on fact than on superstition. Hopefully someday.

Although I agree personally that moral behaviour is separate from religion, there are a heck of a lot of individuals who required some sort of religious conversion to start behaving themselves. Not the ideal reason, but it works often enough that I wouldn't want it discouraged.

[Endel]

its a bit hard to believe that athiests are more hated then gays

being an athiest, i've been sneered at, screamed at, and pitied. but i've never been more then superficially hated, unlike my gay & lesban friends. They've had people call thier houses, been harassed in school on a daily basis (with the teachers doing nothing) and have had to deal with parent's of freinds telling them 'you arnt welcome in this house'.

i have to agree with gilda's prev. post about christians having a stronger reaction to gays and other religions then they do to athiests. unless...
has any athiest here had a similar responce to thier lack of religion as my friends have had for thier sexual preference?

[Danger Dude]

I believe it. I have felt more discrimination because of my atheism than because I belong to a minority. Everyone thinks people belong to a Christian denomination unless they look Middle Eastern and they expect me ot go allong with their rituals or feel comfortable when they say grace. When I mention I am an atheist, I get a bunch of dirty looks.

I remember one time my Dad's friend from work came over for dinner. As we started to bless the food, he quickly said he was an atheist. My Dad just smiled and said "You don't have to bless your food, but me and my family do." He always taught that as long as you respect people, all the differences in the world only really matter if you let them.

[Wesley Dodds]

Actually, yes, that's a good point. There are a lot of people who needed religion as a sort of kick start to behaving morally.

And there are a lot of people who need religion to stay off drugs or achohol.

My personal experience of people who really do need religion is the reason why I don't call for an end to theism. The universe is a bleak place and if you need to go a little crazy to deal with it then fine.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Although I agree personally that moral behaviour is separate from religion, there are a heck of a lot of individuals who required some sort of religious conversion to start behaving themselves. Not the ideal reason, but it works often enough that I wouldn't want it discouraged.


If religion was the only tool we had to help out such folk, I'd be in favor of it, but it isn't. Most people are able to to develop a rational morality if one takes the time to teach it.

[west3man]

Ability and motivation are two separate things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

its a bit hard to believe that athiests are more hated then gays

being an athiest, i've been sneered at, screamed at, and pitied. but i've never been more then superficially hated, unlike my gay & lesban friends. They've had people call thier houses, been harassed in school on a daily basis (with the teachers doing nothing) and have had to deal with parent's of freinds telling them 'you arnt welcome in this house'.

Gays probably get it worse at the extreme - there is relatively little athiest bashing, and nobody is pushing for amendments to disallow athiests to marry - but on the other side, gay is stylish now. When have there been athiest shows the equivalent of "Will and Grace?" A lot more people express a broad support for gay causes than they do athiest causes.

Of course, that latter may be a function of there being relatively few athiest causes, with the few out there (skepticism, for example) lacking a lot of visibility and public relations oomph.

[Danger Dude]

Is some one gonna tell me what a (did I get this right?) Secular Humanist is?

[Winslow]

Is some one gonna tell me what a (did I get this right?) Secular Humanist is?

I was gonna type out a repsonse, but got lazy and looked it up on Wikipedia.

The article seemed fair and balanced.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Wesley Dodds]

OK. Basically, a secular humanist is someone who doesn't believe in God but thinks we should be nice to each other. A secular humanist is someone who doesn't believe in God but believes we should be moral. Think Christianity without any belief in Christ.

It's sometimes as a pejorative by Christians who see it as a challenge to faith in Christ. Example:

Secular humanists "worship creation, rather than the Creator." (Romans 1) their god is self. "resourcefulness and courage" are exalted, and faith and trust in God are mocked. "Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance," it states. (p. 24)

Do they hate Christians? Yes. "We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds," they say. (p. 24) But worse than that, they are haters of God. Author John Dumphey writes of "the rotting faith of Christ," etc. (The Humanist, Feb. 1983)


Reading something like that, most secular humanists would go "Wha....?"

They're right to identify secular humanism as Christianity's competition. Secular humanists take religious ethics and separate out the religious components. And if you can get the ethics elsewhere, religion loses one of its major sources of legitimacy.

[west3man]

And if you can get the ethics elsewhere, religion loses one of its major sources of legitimacy.
And, unfortunately, morality would lose it's major sources of motivation.

[Winslow]

The universe is a bleak place and if you need to go a little crazy to deal with it then fine.

*blows saliva bubbles*

*bangs head against wall*

[Huh?]

Atheists rule! Christians drool!

Honestly, if you polled a bunch of atheists in the US, I bet the people they would say they hated most were christians. It is a sympton of the discourse between the two groups in this country. It is nasty and doesn't help foster any understanding between the two.

I don't have a problem with anyone or what they believe as long as they don't have a problem with me.

[Wesley Dodds]

And, unfortunately, morality would lose it's major sources of motivation.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, athiests find this argument comic.

It's not as though there are people out there going "I'm going to stick a knife in that hooker and then I'm going to -- oh, wait, I'm a Christian. Dang."

Why be moral to people? Well:

- mutual fear
- we have a genetic basis for altruism
- the social contract
- the importance of reciprocity
- identification with and empathy for others
- sense of duty

You have plenty of reasons to do the right thing without needing to appeal to God or the afterlife.

[Endel]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, athiests find this argument comic.

It's not as though there are people out there going "I'm going to stick a knife in that hooker and then I'm going to -- oh, wait, I'm a Christian. Dang."

Why be moral to people? Well:

- mutual fear
- we have a genetic basis for altruism
- the social contract
- the importance of reciprocity
- identification with and empathy for others
- sense of duty

You have plenty of reasons to do the right thing without needing to appeal to God or the afterlife.

here here. humanity isnt all bad

[Wesley Dodds]

*blows saliva bubbles*

*bangs head against wall*

Keep in mind that I feel the same way about politics.

Liberalism and conservatism are what happens when one day you snap and you can't mind your own business anymore.

You go crazy and start believing in weird things like the salvation of mankind through the death of Christ or the salvation of mankind through supply side economics or the salvation of mankind through universal healthcare.

Thinking this doesn't make me any less political. After all, you can argue that we really would be better off with universal healthcare. But that doesn't mean it's not a personality disorder.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And, unfortunately, morality would lose it's major sources of motivation.

If one's morality is based only on the chance to avoid punishment or get rewarded by someone, I fail to see this as a major loss.

This is particularly true when the "someone" in question is an entity which not only cannot be demonstrated to actually exist, and whose potential existence is in fact contrary to the rules by which the natural, observable, real world functions.

[west3man]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, athiests find this argument comic.

It's not as though there are people out there going "I'm going to stick a knife in that hooker and then I'm going to -- oh, wait, I'm a Christian. Dang."How do you know? I'll bet there ARE people out there who want to do very bad things, but choose not to because they believe they'll burn in Hell or something, for it.

By, anyway, I was extending the logic of your statement. You said, "And if you can get the ethics elsewhere, religion loses one of its major sources of legitimacy."
You're saying, in that statement, that the morality caused by religion legitimates it.


Why be moral to people? Well:

- mutual fear
- we have a genetic basis for altruism
- the social contract
- the importance of reciprocity
- identification with and empathy for others
- sense of duty

You have plenty of reasons to do the right thing without needing to appeal to God or the afterlife.And yet people frequently DON'T do "the right thing," so clearly not all reasons are equally effective with all people.

For some people, religion may be THE reason they don't do certain "bad" things.

[west3man]

If one's morality is based only on the chance to avoid punishment or get rewarded by someone, I fail to see this as a major loss.If what stops this person from taking a 12-year-old life is the threat of punishment, in this life or the afterlife, then removing that threat DOES result in a loss... a loss of a child's life.

This is particularly true when the "someone" in question is an entity which not only cannot be demonstrated to actually exist, and whose potential existence is in fact contrary to the rules by which the natural, observable, real world functions.
Nah. Whether God turns out to be real or whether it turns out that the person would get away with the murder is immaterial IF the person BELIEVES that the threat (from God or the legal system) is real... and if that threat is sufficient to stop the person from taking a life.

[Ogdred]

Well, I'm thinking except for the Devil.

But, isn't the Devil the one who needs love the most? Shouldn't Christians be praying for the Devil's soul? Seems to me, if Satan were saved, that would solve a lot of problems.

[Wesley Dodds]

You're saying, in that statement, that the morality caused by religion legitimates it.

Not quite. I'm saying that religions use morality to get legitimacy. Not that religion causes morality that gives it legitimacy.

Religions generally have an ethics and an eschatology. The eschatology's the point of the religion -- if you don't believe in Christ, you'll go to Hell. The ethics are a nice thing everyone agrees with that the religion uses to shield itself from criticism.

I do believe there are people who will do evil things if they don't have to deal with the threat of punishment. But people who are that crazy are more than capable of twisting their religious beliefs into a justification for their evil. For example, the Phineas Priesthood, who use the biblical story of Phineas to justify executing interracial couples.

[west3man]

Not quite. I'm saying that religions use morality to get legitimacy. Not that religion causes morality that gives it legitimacy.Do you think there are a bunch of people whose morality came from and/or is based on their religion?

Religions generally have an ethics and an eschatology. The eschatology's the point of the religion -- if you don't believe in Christ, you'll go to Hell. The ethics are a nice thing everyone agrees with that the religion uses to shield itself from criticism.

I do believe there are people who will do evil things if they don't have to deal with the threat of punishment. But people who are that crazy are more than capable of twisting their religious beliefs into a justification for their evil. For example, the Phineas Priesthood, who use the biblical story of Phineas to justify executing interracial couples.
"Evil things" like "killing" aren't necessarily the result of "crazy." Not always.

If Nicole Brown Simpson's family hadn't chosen to sue O.J., whom I assume they believe killed NBS, but instead chose to kill him since he was found "not guilty," does that mean they're crazy or that they feel that the only justice they'll get will be the justice they make.

Maybe you call that crazy. I don't.

That's not to say that it is "right" or "legal." It just means that insanity isn't a requisite.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think you are crazy if your religion is the only thing holding you back, yes.

I can't deny that there are people who start behaving morally after they get religion, but I think that's more to do with the electric, catalyzing experience of the "spaceless and timeless". You know, where you feel connected to some "great unseen living force... what the Hindus call Prana."

Post hoc ergo proper hoc. People get morality after they get religion, but I think it's because the experience of conversion has changed the personality, not because they're now afraid of going to Hell.

[Wesley Dodds]

And then there's OJ. Basically, I think internalised moral precepts based on reason are a sturdier foundation for moral behaviour than fear of what may happen to you in some cosmic realm after you die.

[west3man]

I think you are crazy if your religion is the only thing holding you back, yes.

I can't deny that there are people who start behaving morally after they get religion, but I think that's more to do with the electric, catalyzing experience of the "spaceless and timeless". You know, where you feel connected to some "great unseen living force... what the Hindus call Prana."

Post hoc ergo proper hoc. People get morality after they get religion, but I think it's because the experience of conversion has changed the personality, not because they're now afraid of going to Hell.
So, people who vote against capital punishment only because their religion tells them that's wrong, are crazy?

I think it's a bit too convenient to paint a bunch of people with the crazy brush because they'd kill in a war or to defend their families or themselves... if not for the tenets of their religion.

[HomerJay]

"I'm no theologian. I don't know what God is exactly, but I do know it's a force more powerful than Mom & Dad combined."
- Lisa Simpson

I'm not saying that religion is the only legitimate source of a moral code. Asshats like Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden disprove that daily. What I AM saying is whatever contributes to you being a good person whether it be church, family, life experiences, or Spider-Man comics (or in my case, all 4), then that source is, in fact, legitimate. Religion is maybe the most widely-used (and abused) foundation for people to base their moral code upon. What they actually build from that foundation varies greatly.

And Wesley...
If anything, God as a moral compass is a weaker reason to do the right thing.
The universe is a bleak place and if you need to go a little crazy to deal with it then fine.
You go crazy and start believing in weird things like the salvation of mankind through the death of Christ...
I promise not to call you a "Godless Hell-bound Heathen", as long you stop referring to my beliefs as "weak" and "crazy".

This guy on the other hand...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/HomerJay64/_40967048_mel_gibson_beard203ap.jpg

[Shellhead]

So, people who vote against capital punishment only because their religion tells them that's wrong, are crazy?


I think it's wacky that two people who follow the same religion are able to justify opposite actions because of that religion. For example, there are christians on both sides of the death penalty debate. As an outsider, it seems to me that only the christians against the death penalty can find support in their bible, but maybe there are conflicting quotes available to both sides.

[Wesley Dodds]

But I'm calling myself crazy too on account of my irrational political beliefs!

[HomerJay]

But I'm calling myself crazy too on account of my irrational political beliefs!
I never said you weren't crazy, but I am saying I'm not. :p

[Winslow]

I think it's wacky that two people who follow the same religion are able to justify opposite actions because of that religion. For example, there are christians on both sides of the death penalty debate. As an outsider, it seems to me that only the christians against the death penalty can find support in their bible, but maybe there are conflicting quotes available to both sides.

The Death Penalty is a public action by the state or government. The New Testament (primarily a religous text and not political) doesn't have a whole lot to say about it.

So how religous thought plays into its application is a "disputable matter."

In contrast, you won't find Christians arguing about whether or not Jesus was God.

[Gilda Dent]

I've been trying to reconcile this with what you said in another thread. I think I kinda understand (but I'm also kinda sleepy).

Is it that you don't think "having something against Group X" is necessarily the same as "[having] a strong feeling of animosity toward that group?"

Those two are clearly distinct attitudes. I dislike having "In God We Trust" on our currency, but I really don't care very much. Attitudes have different degrees, from mild disagreement to violent raging animosity. Degree is just as important as the type of feeling.

Gilda

[Winslow]

But I'm calling myself crazy too on account of my irrational political beliefs!

Nothing is rational. Hume was right.

(not really - just trying to sound intelligent)

[Shellhead]

The Death Penalty is a public action by the state or government. The New Testament (primarily a religous text and not political) doesn't have a whole lot to say about it.

So how religous thought plays into its application is a "disputable matter."

In contrast, you won't find Christians arguing about whether or not Jesus was God.

Is that how some Christians were okay with owning slaves?

[BlairH]

Those two are clearly distinct attitudes. I dislike having "In God We Trust" on our currency,
Don't y'all also have this on your currency?

http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/dollar_ase.gif

Quite a secular mesage!

[Winslow]

Is that how some Christians were okay with owning slaves?

They were wrong.

Edit: Slavery is mentioned in the New Testament. However, slavery in first century Palestine was more of an economic status of debt, rather than institutionalized slavery we're more familiar with.

[west3man]

Those two are clearly distinct attitudes.
Sorry. Just thought I'd ask.

__________

[Adric]

‘In God We Trust’ only appeared on US currency in 1957 and beyond, and was done under pressure from religious groups during the Eisenhower regime. Its use on coins dates back farther, but was less common before 1908. One might draw a parallel between the conservative, Donna Reed attitudes of the fifties and the current administration’s pandering to the whims of the religious right.

Though I don’t like the logo and find putting the word ‘God’ on something like money to be ironic at best, it ranks among the lesser of my worries.

Adric

[Michael P]

‘In God We Trust’ only appeared on US currency in 1957 and beyond, and was done under pressure from religious groups during the Eisenhower regime.
Correction: religious, anticommunist groups. It was all a marketing bit to show how we were better than those godless Commies.

That's when "under God" got added to the pledge, too.

[Wesley Dodds]

In the movie They Live the hero uses the sunglasses that allow him to see subliminal messages to look at money. It says "This Is Your God".

[YoursTruly]

I think it's wacky that two people who follow the same religion are able to justify opposite actions because of that religion. For example, there are christians on both sides of the death penalty debate. As an outsider, it seems to me that only the christians against the death penalty can find support in their bible, but maybe there are conflicting quotes available to both sides.


THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

"Moses was taught that men were living in such unruly ways, lacking self-discipline, and all men were to be told that to kill was against God, for do not forget, God is The Creator and The Judge. Men do not have the right to kill another human being, whether it be to take his life, his will, his dignity, his skill, his mind, his hope, his trust, his integrity. Men can be depleted of physical energy, emotional control and spiritual strength by another man's lack of self-discipline, emotional instability, greed, hate, lust, anger, lack of charity.

To kill is to rob man of the great privilege reserved for God alone. Only God has the right to judge when the physical must end."

According to the 5th commandment... which any "christian" should know well... christians should be against the death penalty.

[Alex]

Somehow this makes me proud to be an atheist.
It makes me feel better.
As a white man, i found that i caused all the world's problems, except the religious ones, the white christians started those.
Now, there is a group more hated then me!

[Winslow]

‘In God We Trust’ only appeared on US currency in 1957 and beyond, and was done under pressure from religious groups during the Eisenhower regime. Its use on coins dates back farther, but was less common before 1908. One might draw a parallel between the conservative, Donna Reed attitudes of the fifties and the current administration’s pandering to the whims of the religious right.

Though I don’t like the logo and find putting the word ‘God’ on something like money to be ironic at best, it ranks among the lesser of my worries.

Adric

Not really

Here ya go:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[Iangould]

Although I agree personally that moral behaviour is separate from religion, there are a heck of a lot of individuals who required some sort of religious conversion to start behaving themselves. Not the ideal reason, but it works often enough that I wouldn't want it discouraged.

There are limits though - I've known people who've gone throughsuch processes and they xcan end up saying "But I have to remain a Rajneeshi (to cite one specific real-world example) or I'll end up back on smack. Therefore I will ignore any and all abuses committed by the leaders of my religion."

[Iangould]

And, unfortunately, morality would lose it's major sources of motivation.

I am no less moral than most religious people I know.

[west3man]

I am no less moral than most religious people I know.
My statement didn't imply otherwise.

[Iangould]

But, isn't the Devil the one who needs love the most? Shouldn't Christians be praying for the Devil's soul? Seems to me, if Satan were saved, that would solve a lot of problems.

Assuming the Devil has free will, I often wonder why he doesn't screw with God by refusing to send the Anti-Christ to Earth to start the End of Days.

(Yes, I wodner abotu the motivations and actions of characters I don't literally believe in. What does Scottie see in that frigid Emma bitch anyway?)

[Ed Cunard]

According to the 5th commandment... which any "christian" should know well... christians should be against the death penalty.

From Ecclesiastes:

3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

Winslow or someone else who is Christian can probably explain the context better, but it's there.

[Michael P]

Assuming the Devil has free will, I often wonder why he doesn't screw with God by refusing to send the Anti-Christ to Earth to start the End of Days.

(Yes, I wodner abotu the motivations and actions of characters I don't literally believe in. What does Scottie see in that frigid Emma bitch anyway?)
Everything not covered by a costume.

[Gilda Dent]

Sorry. Just thought I'd ask.

__________

It it seemed I took offense, I assure you that wasn't the case. That was written a bit more bluntly than I'd intended.

Gilda

[Iangould]

"

I'm not saying that religion is the only legitimate source of a moral code. Asshats like Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden disprove that daily. What I AM saying is whatever contributes to you being a good person whether it be church, family, life experiences, or Spider-Man comics (or in my case, all 4), then that source is, in fact, legitimate.

Amen, brother

[Ed Cunard]

Everything not covered by a costume.

Alternately, "himself."

[Iangould]

In contrast, you won't find Christians arguing about whether or not Jesus was God.

Do you consider Mormons Christians?

[Dreadstar]

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

More correctly interpretted, I believe, as THOU SHALT NOT (COMMIT) MURDER.

"Moses was taught that men were living in such unruly ways, lacking self-discipline, and all men were to be told that to kill was against God, for do not forget, God is The Creator and The Judge. Men do not have the right to kill another human being, whether it be to take his life, his will, his dignity, his skill, his mind, his hope, his trust, his integrity. Men can be depleted of physical energy, emotional control and spiritual strength by another man's lack of self-discipline, emotional instability, greed, hate, lust, anger, lack of charity.

To kill is to rob man of the great privilege reserved for God alone. Only God has the right to judge when the physical must end."

Interesting. It's in quotes. Whom is the passage quoting, exactly?

[YoursTruly]

From Ecclesiastes:



Winslow or someone else who is Christian can probably explain the context better, but it's there.

Not sure "A time to kill" means another human being. People used to have to sacrifice "hence Jesus being called the lamb of God" to gain forgivness of their sins.

As far as the teaching I received from church... the ten commandments are never to be broken for any reason.

[Winslow]

Winslow or someone else who is Christian can probably explain the context better, but it's there.

The death penalty for murder is often justifed by the following verse:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6.

However, now I defer to Morts.

I talked with an Orthodox Jew at work about this verse, and he said that in order for the Death Penalty to be used under the law of Moses, a standard of proof beyond "reasonable doubt" had to be brought before 70 elders . . . . or some such thing. In other words, taking life was handled very carefully.

[YoursTruly]

More correctly interpretted, I believe, as THOU SHALT NOT (COMMIT) MURDER.



Interesting. It's in quotes. Whom is the passage quoting, exactly?

Interpretted by whom?

That passage is merely one christian's opinion of the commandment. I pulled it from a site. Figured I'd pop it in here since opinions are being flung around.

The interpretation given to me 25 years ago was that "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that... God is the only one allowed to judge another human being for his sins. Trying to play God by judging others is in itsself a sin according to the teachings os Southern Baptists.

[Winslow]

Do you consider Mormons Christians?

No . . . . . . .

Is a Mormon wants to call themsleves Christian, I'm not going to stop them.

But Jesus is kind of the "main thing" in Christainity.

[YoursTruly]

The death penalty for murder is often justifed by the following verse:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Genesis 9:6.



Yet another reason I choose to not believe in the teachings of the "Bible". One book that contradicts itsself so frequently can't be taken very seriously.

[Winslow]

The interpretation given to me 25 years ago was that "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that... God is the only one allowed to judge another human being for his sins. Trying to play God by judging others is in itsself a sin according to the teachings os Southern Baptists.

That's very close to the Othodox Jew's comments when I asked him about the Gensis verse I quoted above.

Interesting.

Anyway, some Christians say, God delegates judgement of capital punishment for capital offenses to "the state."

This position attempte to reconcile Genesis 6:9 with other verses where God used the nation of Israel (a government or "state") to perform just wars on Israel's enemies.

anyway . . . I'm actually more on your side YoursYruly. I have reservations about the Death Penalty. But I'm not as strongly opposed as you. I can see how supporting it is not necessarily anti-Christian.

[Winslow]

Yet another reason I choose to not believe in the teachings of the "Bible". One book that contradicts itsself so frequently can't be taken very seriously.

Well, no. Contradiction assumes the differences cannot be reconciled.

There are interpretations and doctrines that reconcile the differences.

God hates violence, yet sanctions it for punishment of evil.

[Winslow]

Assuming the Devil has free will, I often wonder why he doesn't screw with God by refusing to send the Anti-Christ to Earth to start the End of Days.

(Yes, I wodner abotu the motivations and actions of characters I don't literally believe in. What does Scottie see in that frigid Emma bitch anyway?)

As a good Christian amillenialist, I will tell you there is no actual anti-Christ.

He makes for a great character in movies though. ;)

[Dreadstar]

Interpretted by whom?

Biblical scholars and linguists over what they consider to be extremely early Hebrew versions?

That passage is merely one christian's opinion of the commandment. I pulled it from a site. Figured I'd pop it in here since opinions are being flung around.

The interpretation given to me 25 years ago was that "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that... God is the only one allowed to judge another human being for his sins. Trying to play God by judging others is in itsself a sin according to the teachings os Southern Baptists.

Ok then, if we're going to go literal on it:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL WHAT? Exactly? I mean, it doesn't exactly say in Exodus, does it? Who decided it meant people?

I'm just trying to gently point out that the interpretation you received 25 years ago may not be quite as thorough as you might think.

And the opinion you quoted was very nice, too. Certainly filled with a great deal of personal conviction, for which I'd never fault the speaker. Still, it is opinion.

[Shellhead]

THOU SHALT NOT KILL WHAT? Exactly? I mean, it doesn't exactly say in Exodus, does it? Who decided it meant people?


You're right, of course. For all we know, that commandment was referring to wombats, and everybody in biblical times clearly understood the implication.

[Paul McEnery]

In contrast, you won't find Christians arguing about whether or not Jesus was God.
Who says?

There's an awful lot of discussion on the meaning and actuality of the Incarnation.

Bishop John Hicks, The Myth of God Incarnate (http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1978/v35-2-bookreview6.htm).

John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. (http://www.christianorigins.com/crossan.html)

[Michael P]

In contrast, you won't find Christians arguing about whether or not Jesus was God.
Missed this somehow the first time around. But, speaking as the grandson of a Lutheran minister:

Bwa-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Winslow]

Who says?

There's an awful lot of discussion on the meaning and actuality of the Incarnation.

Bishop John Hicks, The Myth of God Incarnate (http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1978/v35-2-bookreview6.htm).

John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus. (http://www.christianorigins.com/crossan.html)

I don't have time to read the links. I will later.

But if one removes the deity of Christ from Christianity, it seems to me you lose a vital ingerdient, and it becomes something else altogether. Grace, the resurrection, the propitiation of the cross . .are all tied up in Christ's identity.

Even if one believes in redaction criticism, changing the identity of Christ would change the historical religion.

[EZMOHR]

First off, for Winslow....If you don't think Mormons are Christian....then you don't know much about The LDS. Jesus is their main tennant. Mormons are Christians bar none. I grew up in an area that was surveyed as 90% Mormon. So I know a little about the LDS church. But anyway I digress.


SO, for my two cents in the topic, I want to first give my background. I'm white, I'm Christian, and I'm Catholic. I'm 27 years old. I try to go to mass every week. I believe in God, Jesus, Supreme Being, whatever one wants to call it.

I believe in science whole-heartedly. I have BA's and BS's in Sociology and Organic Chemistry. When my wife is done with her PhD in May, I'm going back to school to get my Masters in a Chemistry discipline.

I believe in Evolution. I think it is the best stepping stone to see what we are, were, and could be.

More about me...as everyone knows I married (I've been married for almost 8 years.) I have two seven year old twin girls, who go to mass with me every week, and I have 6 month old daughter. I'm a police officer and have been for over 5 years.

Now on to the question at hand. Can I tolerate atheists. Yes. We live in a country that is supposed to be about CHOICE. I can see why people don't believe in something SUPREME. What evidence is there. NONE. There is nothing tangible to say that what you see, is all you get.

Do I associate with atheist. Yeah, everyday. My mother-in-law is atheist. Hell, most of in-laws have no use for what we would call organized religion. They simply do not see why I believe in GOD, with all the knowledge they assume I have.

Like I said, I don't think atheist's are some "lesser" moral creature. They just have all the evidence and have a different hypothesis than I do.

And, again, I'm 27 years old, and I have never had a atheist call me a sheep or scream me down and call me stupid. NEVER. But, I've had a Jehovah Witness tell me I was going to Hell for voting for George Bush. I had a Baptist tell me I was going to Hell for praying to "the Pope." (which is amazing because every Sunday or Wednesday when I go to mass, I have never said praise The Pope in 27 years of life.) I've had a Methodist tell me I was going to Hell for being a Catholic. Hell, I had a "Muslim" ( that's a broad term) tell me I would go to Hell because I was racist against him (which I have no idea what was about different story for a different thread.)

But, in the end, I've never been told off by an atheist.

Would I be weirded out if my daughters married an atheist. Probablly at first. If they were a good person who loved my daughters though, who cares. Just a different reason of science they like I guess.

So in the end, I was raised by two parents who were Christian and Catholic as well. My mom believes what is said in a Christian tenant, is what happened. My dad, is a man of sciene, who alos happpens to be religious. Kind of like me.

SO, you ask why do I believe in GOD. What do I see that tells me there is SOMETHING else out there. Well, for me, I look at everything...I see the far reaches of the Universe, as far as we can see. I see the smallest things we know, atoms, cells, protons, electrons, neutrinos, bonds, ions, Evolution, what we were, are, and what could happen. I see everything that makes up scinece, all mediums of it. I see all of it, and I look at the data, and I know that the "why" of the science, the fuel that makes it go, the art of science, the things we know nothing about, and the things we have to amend everyday, because of something new and different, and I know, I have FAITH, that there is something that makes even all that tick, and I know, that there is something more than what even we can see and test, and for me, that is GOD.

There is a God. There is science. They are one in the same. At least, that is what I think. Please don't flame me, it's just it's how I see everything.

[Paul McEnery]

Please try to read this in it's entirety before you click the reply button:

A little background first...
I'm a Christian.
I'm not Catholic, I'm Lutheran. In fact I belong to the most laid-back "branch" of the Lutheran church, The United Church Of Christ. It's also the most tolerant as we're the only Christian church that officially recognizes same-sex unions (we have a few gay couples in our church, and had a baptism a few months ago with 2 mommies). The official UCC motto is "Jesus turned noone away, neither shall we." It's about the individual's relationship with God, and each church is governed by it's congregation, not some dude in Italy.

I think the reason that some members of a religious group look down upon atheists more than another religious group is because atheists are seen by many as "believing in nothing". Religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass, so people might think "no religion = no morals". I'd be lying if I said that I don't feel wary of athiests from time to time. I have definitely noticed that overt cynicism and athiesm are fairly common bedfellows (Note: I am NOT saying here that all atheists are cynical people). The only things that irritate me are some of the high-fiving and intellectual elitism that sometimes springs up when some athiests get together (it's in a few posts here in this thread too), as I'm sure the moral elitism by some Christians irritates athiests. Unlike some people, I do NOT think athiests are going to hell. I feel that even if you don't believe in Jesus, he believes in you.

People who say that religion has no place are dead wrong in my opinion. As I said before, religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass to find their way through life. The extent to which someone takes this moral compass or tries to impose it upon others is what matters. I'm a very firm believer in live-and-let-live as long as you aren't hurting anybody. I won't be a missionary if you won't ridicule me for believing in a higher power.
I just heard a lovely debate about religion on the BBC including Daniel Dennett and Karen Armstrong. It included the fine line: "the cost of community is xenophobia", which I know to be true. And I think this plays into the survey we're all talking about.

Christians, after all, can understand the fervour of the other People of the Book -- though perhaps in a less tolerant way than serious Koran scholars. But no matter how liberal you are, you can't understand someone who doesn't interact with the religious experience. Christians are instructed by St. Paul (I think) not to marry unbelievers. Muslims likewise (though interpretations of "believers" vary). And of course Orthodox Judaism is very strict about this -- though again, I think it's a "believer" issue at root more than anything else in theological terms, and below that, a matter of tribal endogamy (which in any case isn't exactly borne out by the study of, say, Moses's wife).

But beyond all of that, we few a/theologians take issue with a theistic conception of the divine precisely because it's a barrier to self-transcendance. For us, we see more value in, among other things, the Hindu understanding demonstrated by doing the hand's together bow thing, and acknowledging the divinity in others with the word "Namaste".

[Gilda Dent]

I don't have time to read the links. I will later.

But if one removes the deity of Christ from Christianity, it seems to me you lose a vital ingerdient, and it becomes something else altogether. Grace, the resurrection, the propitiation of the cross . .are all tied up in Christ's identity.

Even if one believes in redaction criticism, changing the identity of Christ would change the historical religion.

No, Christianity can work just as well with Jesus as the child of God with God working through him while not actually being God himself.

Gilda

[Paul McEnery]

I don't have time to read the links. I will later.

But if one removes the deity of Christ from Christianity, it seems to me you lose a vital ingerdient, and it becomes something else altogether. Grace, the resurrection, the propitiation of the cross . .are all tied up in Christ's identity.

Even if one believes in redaction criticism, changing the identity of Christ would change the historical religion.
Well it did, didn't it. :evilsmile

[Michael P]

But beyond all of that, we few a/theologians take issue with a theistic conception of the divine precisely because it's a barrier to self-transcendance. For us, we see more value in, among other things, the Hindu understanding demonstrated by doing the hand's together bow thing, and acknowledging the divinity in others with the word "Namaste".
In other words, you can't understand someone who doesn't interact with the (a)religious experience.

[Winslow]

Well it did, didn't it. :evilsmile

See? :D You agree with me. ;) (for different reasons - and at a different conclusion - I know - but you see where I'm going with this)

Well, I've stirred up a little bit of controversy . . . I meant no offense to anyone.

I like Mormons. I like atheists. I even like Paul McEnery. :D

[Paul McEnery]

In other words, you can't understand someone who doesn't interact with the (a)religious experience.
Yes and no.

Since the religious experience is so key to my way of life, it would be like being tone deaf -- I couldn't understand what it's like to not understand music. Being in that mode -- and having been raised in that mode -- I don't get what it's like to never have been in that mode.

OTOH, I do understand what it's like to be inside a belief-based relationship to that mode of being, because that's the tradition I came out of. And I understand being in the middle stage of having ditched the beliefs without finding the replacement, because I've been there, too.

[howyadoin]

I think the reason that some members of a religious group look down upon atheists more than another religious group is because atheists are seen by many as "believing in nothing". Religion provides billions of people around the world with a moral compass, so people might think "no religion = no morals".Those people would be dead wrong, of course. I don't need God to tell me that murder is wrong; any sane human being should be able to work that out on their own.

[Slam_Bradley]

I like Mormons. I like atheists. I even like Paul McEnery.


Being an atheist, I'm glad that you like me.



How you can like that McEnery guy, though, is beyond me.

[Paul McEnery]

Being an atheist, I'm glad that you like me.



How you can like that McEnery guy, though, is beyond me.
I put out.
.

[K'Nort]

I think they should survey American Christians on whether they care if God is taken off the currency. I bet very few of us would care. I sure as heck don't. In fact, I'd prefer it wasn't there.

[CrossoverManiac]

As to the sheep comment from lonewolf, I don't tell the religious they are sheep, as sheep have the sense to not waste time with religion.

This message has been brought to you by the enlightened and tolerant atheists; the same enlightened atheists that brought you Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. You three belong together.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This message has been brought to you by the enlightened and tolerant atheists; the same enlightened atheists that brought you Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. You three belong together.

Sure. Just like all Christians belong with Fred Phelps, Torquemada and child-molesting priests.

[Shellhead]

This message has been brought to you by the enlightened and tolerant atheists; the same enlightened atheists that brought you Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. You three belong together.

We'll take credit for Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin if you take responsibility for Osama bin Laden, the nutjobs who started each of the Crusades, and the Reverend Jim Jones.

[K'Nort]

Sure. Just like all Christians belong with Fred Phelps, Torquemada and child-molesting priests.

But you did say we were all stupid sheep.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But you did say we were all stupid sheep.

No, I said sheep are smart enough to not waste time with religion.

[Puma]

if they hate the athiests that must be they're saving the burnings for us pagans

[Naldo]

I was in Honolulu a few months ago.

One morning I was heading into a diner for breakfast and this old woman who looked like she had just left the Pai Gow table (tinted visor and everything).

Anyway she tries to hand me a religious tract. I looked at her and VERY nicely said. "No thank you".

She looks up at me with a really shitty look and says VERY loudly: "Ok, You no love Jesus then you burn in FIRE!".

That's really some marketing tactic. :rolleyes:

[CrossoverManiac]

Sure. Just like all Christians belong with Fred Phelps, Torquemada and child-molesting priests.

Cheap talk coming from the man saying that sheep is more intelligent than religious people. So get off your soapbox hypocrit.

[Gilda Dent]

I think they should survey American Christians on whether they care if God is taken off the currency. I bet very few of us would care. I sure as heck don't. In fact, I'd prefer it wasn't there.

Make that two votes for "prefer it wasn't there."

Gilda

[Endel]

if america is supposed to be a secular state then there shouldnt be religion on the national currencey, IMO

but then again, if most of america is christian and the gov is supposed to represent the people...

[Adric]

This message has been brought to you by the enlightened and tolerant atheists; the same enlightened atheists that brought you Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. You three belong together.

Actually, Pol Pot was not a product of atheism, but of a militant strain of Buddhism. If you look back to the history of the region, you will find there were Buddhist rulers who waged great wars and amassed great empires. The temple at Ankor Wat, the world’s largest religious structure, is testament to this history. Pol Pots rise to power was shaped by returning the country to such historical greatness, and played on this sentiment. But there were many other factors involved, economic and political, so I don’t think it is fair to say that any specific doctrine ‘brought’ us Pol Pot.

I like Buddhism and find it one of the more peaceful religions. But I would like to use this as an example that any religious belief system can be ‘corrupted’ and turned to violent ends. Christians, Atheists, Muslims, whoever…..I don’t think any group has ever held a monopoly on the capacity for death and cruelty.

Extremist viewpoints, belief in blanket statements and lack of tolerance for others strike me as our greatest dangers, more so than any specific religion or ‘anti’ religion today.

It should also be noted that there are Atheistic religions, or religions without a God. Jainism, found mainly in India, predates Hindu and Buddhist systems and has close parallels: belief in Karma, reincarnation, a vegetarian diet, a view of the material world as illusory…but it has no Gods or Goddesses. Ghandi’s mother was of Jain extraction, and to an extent many of his doctrines can be traced to the Jain principle of Ahimsa, or non-violence.


Adric

[JeffreyWKramer]

Cheap talk coming from the man saying that sheep is more intelligent than religious people. So get off your soapbox hypocrit.

Go learn some grammar and spelling.

[EZMOHR]

Ah, JeffreyWKramer and CrossoverManiac...

Proving once again, just like a Hush thread, Ultimates thread, or X-Men forum, nobody can end up having a simple, nice, thoughtful conversation about religion. It is impossible because just like Napoleon Dynamite....you are only on one side or the other. No in-between that I have ever seen. But, I've seen stranger things happen in my life (I do believe there was a Hush thread the other day that did not end in name calling.)

[Iangould]

No . . . . . . .

Is a Mormon wants to call themsleves Christian, I'm not going to stop them.

But Jesus is kind of the "main thing" in Christainity.

I think you get my point thoguh - there's at least one significant group of people (20 million + I think), who consider themselves Christians but don't believe that Jesus is God.

[Iangould]

Ok then, if we're going to go literal on it:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL WHAT? Exactly? I mean, it doesn't exactly say in Exodus, does it? Who decided it meant people?


Morts can correct me if I'm wrong but i'm told the Hebrew verb translated as "kill" here actually translates as "murder" and refers tothe killing of humans without just cause.

[Michael P]

Go learn some grammar and spelling.
You go learn some manners. Or rather, go find yours wherever you left them and reattach them securely so they don't fall off again.

[Iangould]

First off, for Winslow....If you don't think Mormons are Christian....then you don't know much about The LDS. Jesus is their main tennant. Mormons are Christians bar none. I grew up in an area that was surveyed as 90% Mormon. So I know a little about the LDS church. But anyway I digress.

Yes but the Mormons teach that Jesus is simply one of God's sons - in the same way that they teach all humans are God's children in the most literal sense.

Any human man who joins the Mormon Church, obeys its tenets and is baptised into the two orders of the priesthood can expect to obtain Christ-like powers after their death.

So, yes, the Mormons revere Christ but their understanding of Christ and his nature are fundamentally different to that of most other Christian denominations.

Arguably it's closer to that of the Muslims (who deny that Christ was the Son of god but revere him as a prophet) or the Jewish scholars who believe Christ was an enlightened and holy man whose disciplines misunderstood his teachings.

Hell, the Buddhists say Christ was an avatar of Vishnu who was misled by Maya.

[Winslow]

I think you get my point though - there's at least one significant group of people (20 million + I think), who consider themselves Christians but don't believe that Jesus is God.

I thought I was making a factual statement rather than a controversial one. Grass is green, sky is blue, Orthodox Christianity believes Jesus was God.

I wouldn't consider Mormonism “Christian” in the same way Jews don't consider Christians to be Jewish.

EZMOHR - I wasn't dissing Mormons, or didn’t intend to. I was making a distinction in Othodox Christian belief. And again, if Mormons want to call themselves Christian, I'm not going to campaign against it.

To underscore how important Christ’s deity is to my own belief, if hypothetically Christ could be proven NOT to be God, then I would reject Christianity. I’d probably convert to Judaism (hey – go back to the original blue print) or become agnostic.

Hell, the Buddhists say Christ was an avatar of Vishnu who was misled by Maya.

I didn't know that . . . . that’s interesting. Avatar of Vishnu . . .hmmmmm.

[K'Nort]

if america is supposed to be a secular state then there shouldnt be religion on the national currencey, IMO

but then again, if most of america is christian and the gov is supposed to represent the people...

It's supposed to represent the secular interest of the people only, so the majority religion is irrelevant. True of all govts. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and what have you.

[Shellhead]

Cheap talk coming from the man saying that sheep is more intelligent than religious people. So get off your soapbox hypocrit.

Is this an example of a Christian "turning the other cheek"?

[Michael P]

if america is supposed to be a secular state then there shouldnt be religion on the national currencey, IMO

but then again, if most of america is christian and the gov is supposed to represent the people...
The government is supposed to represent all of the people, not just the majority of them.

[Paul McEnery]

Orthodox Christianity believes Jesus was God.

True enough.

But not all Christians are orthodox.

And historically minded Christians know all too well that the ideas of Irenaeus had not too much to do with the life and ideas of Jesus.

[Winslow]

But you did say we were all stupid sheep.

Actually, so did Jesus.

Heh. . . . .anyway . . . . .

[Dreadstar]

Morts can correct me if I'm wrong but i'm told the Hebrew verb translated as "kill" here actually translates as "murder" and refers tothe killing of humans without just cause.

Exactly what I said, thank you.

[EZMOHR]

I thought I was making a factual statement rather than a controversial one. Grass is green, sky is blue, Orthodox Christianity believes Jesus was God.

I wouldn't consider Mormonism “Christian” in the same way Jews don't consider Christians to be Jewish.

EZMOHR - I wasn't dissing Mormons, or didn’t intend to. I was making a distinction in Othodox Christian belief. And again, if Mormons want to call themselves Christian, I'm not going to campaign against it.

To underscore how important Christ’s deity is to my own belief, if hypothetically Christ could be proven NOT to be God, then I would reject Christianity. I’d probably convert to Judaism (hey – go back to the original blue print) or become agnostic.



I didn't know that . . . . that’s interesting. Avatar of Vishnu . . .hmmmmm.


No I know no Mormon diss going on....just saying what people from a pre-dominately Mormon area would say about your comment.


Yeah, I think this is the first religious thread I have ever posted on. These things get ugly very fast...and very, very, very ugly. This one as stayed realitvly sane for awhile.

It's just these things usually boil down to some atheist or whatever'est saying that they can't believe someone in an intellectual golden age could believe in a deity. And then said deity believer says something like he pprays for the soul of the intellectual elietest who is Godless and moraless. And then you've got some pagan who comes in and says something smart-ass that they think is cute, but is just smug as hell, and makes the religious guy and atheist guy think that pagan person is a douche-bag. And then you get another pseudo-intellectual atheist come in and say "can't we all just agree to disagree," and then in resounding "NO." both sides call that dude a pansy, and just as in life...nothing is solved, and the religious people who hate atheist and the atheists who hate religious people keep arguing until the thread is banned...and another starts up a couple of months later and nothing gets solved or talked about seriously once again. Kind of like JeffreyWKramer's sheep. Or maybe Pol Pot and Stalin.

[Gilda Dent]

Ah, JeffreyWKramer and CrossoverManiac...

Proving once again, just like a Hush thread, Ultimates thread, or X-Men forum, nobody can end up having a simple, nice, thoughtful conversation about religion. It is impossible because just like Napoleon Dynamite....you are only on one side or the other. No in-between that I have ever seen. But, I've seen stranger things happen in my life (I do believe there was a Hush thread the other day that did not end in name calling.)

Nah, there are religions that are more moral philosphy than worship of deities, such as Confucianism or Buddhism, or any number of nature religions such as Wicca or Shinto (Emily's religion), which really aren't about evangalising, which seems to be a feature most common to many Muslum and Christian denominations. There are a lot of live and let live religions, and a lot of live and let live Christians and Muslums. You just don't hear from them much, precisely because they're more moderate in how the espouse their views, if at all.

For example, you're not going to see many UU Christians out trying to convert people to Unitarianism. We're in it to enrich own spirits, not to worry about others'.

Gilda

[Winslow]

We've had quite a few helpful and intelligent religous threads on the Couch.

And the atheists often add the most interesting thoughts.

[Wesley Dodds]

Ah, JeffreyWKramer and CrossoverManiac...

Proving once again, just like a Hush thread, Ultimates thread, or X-Men forum, nobody can end up having a simple, nice, thoughtful conversation about religion. It is impossible because just like Napoleon Dynamite....you are only on one side or the other. No in-between that I have ever seen. But, I've seen stranger things happen in my life (I do believe there was a Hush thread the other day that did not end in name calling.)

I blame Paul McEnery. He's such a mixer.

[Winslow]

I blame Paul McEnery. He's such a mixer.

True.

Every time I get that guy in a box, he jumps right out.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Actually, Pol Pot was not a product of atheism, but of a militant strain of Buddhism. If you look back to the history of the region, you will find there were Buddhist rulers who waged great wars and amassed great empires. The temple at Ankor Wat, the world’s largest religious structure, is testament to this history. Pol Pots rise to power was shaped by returning the country to such historical greatness, and played on this sentiment. But there were many other factors involved, economic and political, so I don’t think it is fair to say that any specific doctrine ‘brought’ us Pol Pot.

I like Buddhism and find it one of the more peaceful religions. But I would like to use this as an example that any religious belief system can be ‘corrupted’ and turned to violent ends. Christians, Atheists, Muslims, whoever…..I don’t think any group has ever held a monopoly on the capacity for death and cruelty.

Extremist viewpoints, belief in blanket statements and lack of tolerance for others strike me as our greatest dangers, more so than any specific religion or ‘anti’ religion today.

It should also be noted that there are Atheistic religions, or religions without a God. Jainism, found mainly in India, predates Hindu and Buddhist systems and has close parallels: belief in Karma, reincarnation, a vegetarian diet, a view of the material world as illusory…but it has no Gods or Goddesses. Ghandi’s mother was of Jain extraction, and to an extent many of his doctrines can be traced to the Jain principle of Ahimsa, or non-violence.


Adric


Inregards to Buddhists you can be athiest and be buddhist, I believe there is an "athiest buddhist" commune in Prague actually.

I think there is a pretty varied amount of people who can believe in buddhism and be polytheistic, mono-theistic or athiestic as well, its a pretty open ended system.

As for religion and morality; while the vast majority of people out there are basically moral on their own.

There are a few psycho's who believe the voices in their head are from demons and the only thing keeping them from killing their families and going on rampages is religion, faith healing whatever.

On the other hand there is the counter argument, that there are people who use religion as a justification I suppose to do crazy stuff as well, so whether it saves more lives or takes more lives I wouldn't know.

Inregards to an earlier statement about if religion is the only thing from keeping you from just killing people, stealing from them and all sorts of amorality and evil. Then yeah its pretty arguable that your psychopathic or sociopathic.

[Paul McEnery]

True.

Every time I get that guy in a box, he jumps right out.
That's why I'm still single.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

One problem I always have inregards to believe in God, is not that they believe in a supreme entity of some kind, its not exactly a flawed belief system, it makes some sense.

But more inregards what lead to you to believe in your specific religion?

Just saying that the universe is enough to lead you to believe in a supreme diety isn't enough, it opens the doorway but it doesn't make the selection, I mean there are literally hundreds or thousands or religions out there, many with their own omni-gods.

[spoon_jenkins]

As to the sheep comment from lonewolf, I don't tell the religious they are sheep, as sheep have the sense to not waste time with religion.
IMO this doesn't correspond with reality. I think religious people are a diverse group. There are plenty of smart religious people out there. I don't think there's some it's like there's some IQ cut-off with the atheists above it and the religious below it.

The reason I'm an atheist is just because I don't believe in deities. It's not about whether all atheists or relgious people are better or worse. People be religious and be great folks. People can be atheists and be total dipshits. My respect and friendship is based on who the person is on the whole rather than whether they have the same attitude on religion. To do otherwise seems kind of arbitrary.

Lots of religious people are independent minded. They not automatons or lemmings. They use their own minds to make moral judgments and evaluate their religion's teachings. Different adherents can interpret a religion differently.

To illustrate, one of my good friends belongs to a nondenominational evangelical church. I think in a lot of ways are minds work similarly (e.g. we tend to think the same people suck). Why get stuck on our religious differences? And she's someone with two degrees (one at an Ivy League school) and is working on a third. I can't say she's a moron or a sheep because she's religious.

[Night]

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

"Moses was taught that men were living in such unruly ways, lacking self-discipline, and all men were to be told that to kill was against God, for do not forget, God is The Creator and The Judge. Men do not have the right to kill another human being, whether it be to take his life, his will, his dignity, his skill, his mind, his hope, his trust, his integrity. Men can be depleted of physical energy, emotional control and spiritual strength by another man's lack of self-discipline, emotional instability, greed, hate, lust, anger, lack of charity.

To kill is to rob man of the great privilege reserved for God alone. Only God has the right to judge when the physical must end."

According to the 5th commandment... which any "christian" should know well... christians should be against the death penalty. You speak of Exodus 20:13. You also seem to be taking the King James translation thereof, which is a decent translation in most parts but there are some things about the translation that can be confusing. Other English translations do translate it to “Do not Murder” or similar; which is actually better … see below….

Morts can correct me if I'm wrong but i'm told the Hebrew verb translated as "kill" here actually translates as "murder" and refers tothe killing of humans without just cause. Going from Strong’s Hebrew of “râtsach” used in the commandment the definition is “to dash in pieces.” And can be translated to any of the following: slay, kill, murder (especially murder), assassinate, avenge. Yet another reason I choose to not believe in the teachings of the "Bible". One book that contradicts itsself so frequently can't be taken very seriously. When the Bible talks about murder in your commandment “kill” it uses the Hebrew “râtsach” but when it talks about capital punishment it uses the Hebrew “mûth” which can be translated to die, kill, be executed, put to death, perish; which does have a common translatable word : “kill” but only one and the other available translations for the two Hebrew words show they do in fact have two different meaning. So you haven’t shown here that the Bible contradicts itself, you’ve merely shown that you did not understand it.

In the OT the idea of capital punishment was strong. It wasn’t until we get to the woman caught in adultery in the NT that the practice was even questioned. Even then Jesus didn’t come out and say that capital punishment was wrong. He said that he who was without sin cast the first stone. He was saying basically if you judge prepare to be held to your own standard. He knew that anyone there ready to stone her had something in their lives that would bring a death sentence to them under the law.

[Dan Apodaca]

The fact that the overall culture skews Christian in no way justifies (or should have any relationship to) one individual insulting another. Especially when the aggressor has no idea of the other individual's actual personal belief system and they are actually lashing out at stereotypes and past insults.

And that goes both ways.

I wasn't insulting anybody. I was expressing a lack of sympathy for his plight.

And lots of sarcasm. But no insults.

[Nikita]

What about agnostic bisexuals? Where do we stand in the "most hated group lists" ?

:D

[Night]

I'd be tempted to answer with, "No...where was the last place you left him?" Or, The last time he was lost, he was hanging out at his father's house. (ref. Luke 2:49)Or if you really want to mess with his head, just rape him right there in the bathroom. And while he's balled up crying in the handicap stall, turn to him and yell, in your best Edward G. Robinson voice, "Where's your messiah now!" How Spanish Inquisition of you. Forgive them for they do not know what they say.

[Brad Curran]

How Spanish Inquisition of you. Forgive them for they do not know what they say.

I think it's less that than "How tasteless of you." Or really trying to be outrageous/inapprorpiate. Because, you know, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition. But Stonegold making tasteless jokes is pretty predictable. Sometimes funny, but still. He reminds me a lot of Family Guy, actually. I should probably stop talking shit about him now.

[Dan Apodaca]

He reminds me a lot of Family Guy, actually.

Except Stonegold still makes me laugh.

[Brad Curran]

What about agnostic bisexuals? Where do we stand in the "most hated group lists" ?

:D

It depends on how much they dislike indecision and how much they like someone with an open mind who will make out with girls and guys. Me, I like your lack of choice just fine. That's the side of the spectrum I fall on.

[Brad Curran]

Except Stonegold still makes me laugh.

You need to send me a list of things that make you laugh still for that to register to me. Seriously. Send it to me soon via PM.

[Dan Apodaca]

You need to send me a list of things that make you laugh still for that to register to me. Seriously. Send it to me soon via PM.

It's shrinking away as I write it! OH NO! MY SOUR ATTITUDE HAS FINALLY GOTTEN THE BEST OF ME!!!!!!

[Gumbo Maximillian]

You speak of Exodus 20:13. You also seem to be taking the King James translation thereof, which is a decent translation in most parts but there are some things about the translation that can be confusing. Other English translations do translate it to “Do not Murder” or similar; which is actually better … see below….

Going from Strong’s Hebrew of “râtsach” used in the commandment the definition is “to dash in pieces.” And can be translated to any of the following: slay, kill, murder (especially murder), assassinate, avenge. When the Bible talks about murder in your commandment “kill” it uses the Hebrew “râtsach” but when it talks about capital punishment it uses the Hebrew “mûth” which can be translated to die, kill, be executed, put to death, perish; which does have a common translatable word : “kill” but only one and the other available translations for the two Hebrew words show they do in fact have two different meaning. So you haven’t shown here that the Bible contradicts itself, you’ve merely shown that you did not understand it.

In the OT the idea of capital punishment was strong. It wasn’t until we get to the woman caught in adultery in the NT that the practice was even questioned. Even then Jesus didn’t come out and say that capital punishment was wrong. He said that he who was without sin cast the first stone. He was saying basically if you judge prepare to be held to your own standard. He knew that anyone there ready to stone her had something in their lives that would bring a death sentence to them under the law.

As translated to english; it does contradict itself, as left in hebrew no it doesn't.

Though it should be mentioned; one of the definations of "murder" is simply to kill something, pre-planned or accidental doesn't really factor into that defination.

Actually I would still say thats a contradiction; it says don't kill period because thats God's place, you aren't the one to judge but then it says its okay for people to murder if decided by the goverment?

Of course then theirs the phineas thing pointed out earlier, the bit about how its okay to kill in war and the whole trade your cloak for a sword (which I believe actually contradicts an earlier instance with King David, something about he who lives by the sword dies by the sword....if I remember correctly God was disappointed in David drawing on his sword because it indicated a lack of faith).

But yeah I suppose the ultimate conclusion to be drawn is that despite its wording "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is anything but concrete.

Its okay to do it in Self-Defense
Its okay to do it in War
Its okay to do it as in carrying out the courts orders

You just can't do it to further your career or get money etc...though that view point kind of goes against the "only God has the right to judge thing"

[Nate C.]

No, Christianity can work just as well with Jesus as the child of God with God working through him while not actually being God himself.

Gilda

except for that whole denying the self claims to deity that Christ made and all that.

[Nate C.]

Oh, and on topic (sorta) my two favorite people on CBR are Slam Bradley and Ed Cunard (in no particular order). Atheists, the both.

Followed up by Winslow and Theopholis. Devout Orthodox Evangelical Christians.

So make of that what you will.

I would have mentioned McEnry, but he told me to go to hell the last time he spoke to me. Musta been a bad chakra week.

[Dan Apodaca]

Ed Cunard has been scientifically proven to be everything that anybody in the world thinks of when they say the word "good."

[Nate C.]

except for that whole denying the self claims to deity that Christ made and all that.

and for the inevitable responses challenging me to prove that Jesus made claims to deity,

John 8:58 and Mark 2:7,10 for starters.

A Johanine reference for most everybody, and a synoptic for Paul. :rolleyes:

[Tadhg]

Ed Cunard has been scientifically proven to be everything that anybody in the world thinks of when they say the word "good."

Ed Cunard is what I think of when I say the word duck.

[OzBat!]

Duck is good. Especially in a nice plum sauce.

Oddly enough, I don't see Ed in this context.

[JeffreyWKramer]

IMO this doesn't correspond with reality. I think religious people are a diverse group. There are plenty of smart religious people out there. I don't think there's some it's like there's some IQ cut-off with the atheists above it and the religious below it.
I never claimed otherwise. Lots of people who are generally smart are dumb when it comes to believing in ridiculous, illogical things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Arthur Conan Doyle - no dummy - believed in fairies. Many otherwise intelligent people support Bush and believe the nonsense-spin he and his Administration tosses out there- though many have also wised up and stopped supporting him. I rather hope the same thing happens in regard to religion - that people, and humanity as a whole - wises up and realizes how silly the whole thing is, and what a waste of time it is.

Interestingly, some of the religious here at CBR readily make fun of the beliefs of Scientologists. Not surprising, given that a) most of the tenets of Scientology are patently ridiculous, b) some prominent Scientologists, such as Tom Cruise, keep behaving like complete idiots in public, and c) we have concrete evidence not only that Scientology is a scam, but of who has perpetrated the scam. A somewhat smaller group of CBR folk is willing to be as critical in regard to the beliefs of some semi-mainstream faiths such as the Mormons - another group who also believe some pretty damn far-out stuff, and for whom there is ample historical and documentary evidence of just how the LDS church developed from a small, fanatic cult to a very large religious movement. Yet, the ideas of Scientology and those of the Mormons are no less patently absurd than those espoused by any other faith. People who have been dead any length of time don't come back. The world demonstrably isn't carried about on the back of a giant cosmic turtle. Studies of supposed faith healing don't produce results above placebo level, and for all the noise people have made about the supposed "healing power of prayer", actual experimental evidence demonstrates prayer to have no more healing benefit (and also no less) than non-religious meditation or simple, focused positive thinking. There remains absolutely zero evidence - not a shred - for the existence of spirits, angels, demons, gods, etc. - no more evidence than Scientologists can produce for Thetans and other such nonsense. Yet, why do people believe in all these ridiculous things, and so many more?

Sorry, but I don't consider baseless faith, untempered by reason, to be much of a virtue.

[Gilda Dent]

Never Mind.

[Endel]

as marx has said, (or misquoted) "religion is the opiate of the people"

[west3man]

If nothing else, I agree that people saying that people's religious beliefs ought to be treated with respect* EXCEPT FOR THE STUPID ONES is like somebody saying all ethnic groups ought to be treated equally EXCEPT FOR THOSE STUPID ________ICANS.




* - which is distinct from having respect for their content or message

[Puma]

agreed.

I think the biggest problem with people and religion (or lack of) is that some folks are so absolutely certain that because something is right for them that it must be the only right belief. This certainly leads to the "in your face" practices from some, intolerance from others, and the refusal to take a polite "no thanks I'm fine" when trying to spread the news. As long as no one is being harmed, and I realize harm can be a debatable aspect, believe what you wish and respect others' right to do the same.

[Paul McEnery]

I would have mentioned McEnry, but he told me to go to hell the last time he spoke to me. Musta been a bad chakra week.
Did not.

You obviously didn't read my follow up post.

[Paul McEnery]

and for the inevitable responses challenging me to prove that Jesus made claims to deity,

John 8:58 and Mark 2:7,10 for starters.

A Johanine reference for most everybody, and a synoptic for Paul. :rolleyes:
Mark 2:

3 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven."
6
4 Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,
7
"Why does this man speak that way? 5 He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?"
8
Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?
9
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk'?
10
6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"--

Bit of a reach, there.

Seems to me he's saying the exact opposite: People have the authority to forgive sins.

[Wesley Dodds]

If nothing else, I agree that people saying that people's religious beliefs ought to be treated with respect* EXCEPT FOR THE STUPID ONES is like somebody saying all ethnic groups ought to be treated equally EXCEPT FOR THOSE STUPID ________ICANS.

Scientology.

That is to say, religions don't deserve an automatic free pass. If your religion, for example, executes gay people, then it doesn't deserve any respect.

[west3man]

Scientology.

That is to say, religions don't deserve an automatic gay pass. If your religion, for example, executes gay people, then it doesn't deserve any respect.
i've never heard of scientologists or any other religous group, as a whole, in the u.s. executing anybody.

[Paul McEnery]

i've never heard of scientologists or any other religous group, as a whole, in the u.s. executing anybody.
The KKK? Do they count?

[Wesley Dodds]

i've never heard of scientologists or any other religous group, as a whole, in the u.s. executing anybody.

That was just an example of why your claim that all religions deserve our respect is false.

The Scientologists don't deserve our respect because

- they use the law intimidate their critics
- they extort money from their followers
- they brainwash
- they provide only false hope
- their religion was made up by a science fiction writer

[west3man]

The KKK? Do they count?
I don't think so.
They consider themselves to be Christians. So, unless you consider the actions of the KKK to represent those of Christians "as a whole,"...

[west3man]

That was just an example of why your claim that all religions deserve our respect is false.Where did I say that?

[Puma]

That was just an example of why your claim that all religions deserve our respect is false.

The Scientologists don't deserve our respect because

- they use the law intimidate their critics
- they extort money from their followers
- they brainwash
- they provide only false hope
- their religion was made up by a science fiction writer

at least three of these can be applied to many religions depending on a person's perception.

[DonC]

I always knew I was the scum of the earth. Now I have proof!

[Nikita]

It depends on how much they dislike indecision and how much they like someone with an open mind who will make out with girls and guys. Me, I like your lack of choice just fine. That's the side of the spectrum I fall on.


LOL. Cool.


I am proud to be a religiously indecisive American with raging hormones. I love this country. :D

[Nikita]

I honestly don't get the intolerance towards atheists. I used to be an atheist and I was always kind of surprised at the reaction I'd get when I would tell people. You'd think I had just told them I had murdered a puppy or something. They'd have this "aghast" look on their faces. And the surprising thing was, even my more liberal friends who seemed open minded would have the same reaction that you'd expect more from a religious conservative. Funny how some liberal people are not so tolerant after all.

I consider myself more of an agnostic now because I keep changing my mind on whether I believe there is a higher power up there or not. So I can't really call myself an atheist anymore. Sometimes I believe there is a God, sometimes I don't.

I mean, what's the big deal about atheists? They don't believe in God, big deal right? I guess I can understand some peoples' dislike of them if they are the type of atheists who try to push their agenda on others. I never did that, ever. I kept my religious views pretty private actually because I never wanted to step on anyone else's shoes. When I still considered myself an atheist, and I'd meet someone who believed in God, I'd keep it more to myself out of respect for their religious beliefs. (just as long as they didn't try to push their beliefs on me that is)

For some reason, people think atheists = bad people. But you can be an atheist and still be a good person. But I guess some people will never get that. If you tell someone you're an atheist, you might as well have told them you worship Satan and enjoy sacrificing babies or something.

Humans are really dumb sometimes ya know? LOL.

[cable guy]

For some reason, people think atheists = bad people.

Humans are really dumb sometimes ya know? LOL.

I don't think atheists are bad people. Most people I know don't think that way. Alot of people I know, don't have a hard believe in God. In fact most people are doubting now, because of science.

But I agree...people are dumb sometimes. Or at least fight and hate each other about absolutely figgin Anything.

[Nate C.]

Mark 2:

Bit of a reach, there.

Seems to me he's saying the exact opposite: People have the authority to forgive sins.

Not at all. Read it in context. The Pharisees get irate because they know EXACTLY what Jesus is saying. He's claiming to be able to forgive sins (as opposed to forgiving wrongs, which we should all do for each other).

Jesus was claiming a divine perogative. The Pharisees knew it, the passage is clear and you're either being intentionally obtuse, or are missing it.

And if you want to new-agey it up, feel free to, but that's not represented in the text. Remember, Crossan would disaprove.

[mgs]

i agree with this post.
Well, maybe if Atheists would stop being dicks about telling people "There is no God! You're all a bunch of sheep!" and such, we theists would just go on ignoring them.

...Personally, I just don't give a **** about'em one way or another, unless they get up in my face.
i'm not preachy about my religion either, but this has been my experiences with atheists.

[Fabian]

i'm not preachy about my religion either, but this has been my experiences with atheists.
"Hello, would you like to purchase a copy of Watchtower to save your soul?"

[Sanagi]

If people hate gays and atheists, how much would they hate gaytheists?

[mgs]

"Hello, would you like to purchase a copy of Watchtower to save your soul?"
hey, that wasn't me! ;)

i know, that's the other extreme, but surely those people don't represent me either.

it's all about respect, but if's latey been true about those who don't believe. i don't say one word about them not believing, but if they hear one thing about someone with faith, trying to pray to God, they go all off on them.

[Gaz]

i agree with this post.

i'm not preachy about my religion either, but this has been my experiences with atheists.
Fine, stop nutjobs standing on street corners yelling about us all burning in hell if we don't accept Jesus and stop having sex, smoking, drinking and reading fantasy books by Edinburgh-dwelling children's novelists and Jehovah's Witness's and the like trying door-to-door conversion.

I'm not one to go yelling that sheep thing, because I don't believe that's the case, but fair's fair. You want our rare wackos and over-zealous folks to leave you alone, be prepared to reciprocate.

(No offence is intended by this, I'm simply illustrating a parallel. Most religious folks I know are peaceable, cool types who don't bring it up unless the conversation lends itself to that, and are never pushy or evangelical or whatever.)

[Fabian]

hey, that wasn't me! ;)

i know, that's the other extreme, but surely those people don't represent me either.

it's all about respect, but if's latey been true about those who don't believe. i don't say one word about them not believing, but if they hear one thing about someone with faith, trying to pray to God, they go all off on them.
Odd, it's the opposite with me. I don't say anything about my atheism unless Theistic Lad starts preaching to me and how I'm going to hell. I don't ever recall an atheist being a dick about their religion\


Well unless they were a teen and usually a goth but the I blame that on being a teen

[west3man]

Part of the problem here seems to be that an entire group is being held responsible for the actions of a subset of that group.

If SOME atheists refer to you as sheep, your beef is with those particular atheists.
If SOME religious folks tell you that you're going to hell, your beef is with those particular religious folks.

Now, for ME, a religioN saying, "People who don't think this way or act that way are going to hell," is really different from the religioUS saying, "West, YOU'RE going to Hell."
Similarly, the idea that an atheist believes that religious folks are believing in and praying to a nonexistent entity is a distinct from telling them, "You're sheep who are wasting your time, money, and energy."


Maybe that's too fine of a distinction for some, but if it is, I think that's very problematic. If you've got the right to your opinion, that means other people have the right to theirs.

Holding an opinion is one thing. Giving it venomous voice is another.

[tempestuousepulchre]

The winner is when one is standing at a urinal taking a piss, and some true believer stands at the next urinal, turns and asks if you've found Jesus yet. I had that happen once.

Remarkably, I've never heard of athiests going door to door to preach the word, yet we're all supposed to accept it is the right of Christians to go door to door bothering folks with their Word.

As to the sheep comment from lonewolf, I don't tell the religious they are sheep, as sheep have the sense to not waste time with religion.

Hmm, I wonder if this happens often. A friend of mine told me that something like that happened with him too.

[discostu]

In Democracy We Trust.

[Johnny_Storm]

So atheist have a problem with Christains attempting to share their faith with them? I suggest you respond the way you would to any other offer either accept or decline it, if they continue bothering you thats another story. People who won't take "no" for an answer exist in every bunch, salesmen, beggers, and on the far end robbers.

[west3man]

So atheist have a problem with Christains attempting to share their faith with them? I suggest you respond the way you would to any other offer either accept or decline it, if they continue bothering you thats another story. People who won't take "no" for an answer exist in every bunch, salesmen, beggers, and on the far end robbers.
I agree.
The offer isn't a problem, for me. It's the insistent, hard-sell that bothers me.

Luckily, I haven't encountered anywhere near as many hard sells as soft tells.

[Dan Apodaca]

So atheist have a problem with Christains attempting to share their faith with them?

There are a couple of reasons I have a problem with it. One is that I think religion should be a personal thing. Your faith shouldn't have an effect on me. If it does, then it turns into your agenda.

The other is that I really dislike people who define their whole personalities by the group they belong to. If I meet you for the first time, and the only defining characteristic you have is "Religious", chances are, I'm gonna think you're boring and lame. Substitute "Movie Fan", "Political", "Athlete", or any other type at your leisure.

I have friends who run the spectrum from atheist to agnostic to full-on believers. But if you asked me to tell you about them, that particular trait probably wouldn't even come up. I like people who have personalities, not affiliations.

[K'Nort]

The Google ads at the bottom now include an atheist dating service.

[Dan Apodaca]

The Google ads at the bottom now include an atheist dating service.

I thought that was called a bar.

[Iangould]

The Google ads at the bottom now include an atheist dating service.

I wonder what Google ads we'll get if we put "goat sex" in every post.

[K'Nort]

I wonder what Google ads we'll get if we put "goat sex" in every post.

And do we really want to know? Will it get Jonah in trouble?


Goat sex.

[Iangould]

I imagine it'd get google in trouble.

Goat Sex.

[Dan Apodaca]

I can't believe you guys are talking about goat sex so much. Goat sex is disgusting and should never be talked about in public. Not straight goat sex or gay goat sex. Not even goat masturbation.

Really, goat sex is just terribly disgusting and inappropriate.

Please, no more goat sex.

[K'Nort]

Well we now have "Is there a Hell?"

And if there is, that's where you find all the goat sex.

[Dan Apodaca]

Well we now have "Is there a Hell?"

And if there is, that's where you find all the goat sex.

I got labor employment lawyers, which is making me start to wonder about the involvement of goat sex in labor disputes.

[K'Nort]

Now it's just avatars and web hosting. Which is probably the default for when it knows it can't talk about goat sex. There was a sandpaper ad the last time I posted though. Don't want to think to hard about that.

[Johnny_Storm]

If a link pops up, you guys are so going to get busted by Homeland Security.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

If nothing else, I agree that people saying that people's religious beliefs ought to be treated with respect* EXCEPT FOR THE STUPID ONES is like somebody saying all ethnic groups ought to be treated equally EXCEPT FOR THOSE STUPID ________ICANS.




* - which is distinct from having respect for their content or message


Religious belief's and ideas shouldn't and don't deserve to be treated with respect, people deserve respect but all ideas are open to criticism and discussion (whether that be athiesm, agnosticism, creationism, gung-hoism....whatever).

[west3man]

...people deserve respect...
That's what I've been saying.
I don't have to like your idea (i.e. I don't have to respect it), but I don't have to call you an idiot for having it (i.e. I don't have to be disrespectful to you).

[discostu]

Religious belief's and ideas shouldn't and don't deserve to be treated with respect, people deserve respect but all ideas are open to criticism and discussion (whether that be athiesm, agnosticism, creationism, gung-hoism....whatever).
Actually, people don't deserve respect, they earn it. Thinking that you know the secrets of the universe or "god's" will is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Any person who believes in myths or fairytales is a moron. Anyone who thinks a book was written by or under the divine influence of a deity is a moron. Facts should be respected, what can be proven should be respected... never unprovable hypotheses.

[nervmeister]

Actually, people don't deserve respect, they earn it. Thinking that you know the secrets of the universe or "god's" will is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Any person who believes in myths or fairytales is a moron. Anyone who thinks a book was written by or under the divine influence of a deity is a moron. Facts should be respected, what can be proven should be respected... never unprovable hypotheses.And it is not advisable to judge others solely based on the two examples you just set. People can learn you know. Chill out.

[west3man]

I'm all for people earning respect, but I also believe there's a certain amount of baseline respect which ought to be afforded anyone who hasn't proven themselves UNworthy.

[Pinball]

"People deserve a chance to earn your respect" works for me.

Goat Sex.

Goat Perversion.

Sadogoat.

[discostu]

I'm all for people earning respect, but I also believe there's a certain amount of baseline respect which ought to be afforded anyone who hasn't proven themselves UNworthy.
People who belive in imaginary characters have proven themselves unworthy.