Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Either or, your call. If in the old testament slaves are ok and in the new testament they are not, it would appear to suggest slightly less omnipotence than we ar led to expect. If he has changed his mind on that, can we not expect other changes of mind? Worshiping false idols is now cool? Homosexuality isn't the sin that we said it was? Not coveting thy neighbour's ass? Nah, covet away, asses for all.......
Who doesn't have equal rights? Same sex couples who want to marry. We can start there.
Who labeled you? I said your churches, and by going you are tacitly condoning their intolerance. I didn't quote from the website.
I shouldn't be judged for it firstly, I'm not a member, secondly I am not American.
I'm not implying anything the poor christian trope is a load of BS, Christians are the largest religious group in the US, your institutions get massive tax breaks, interfere in secular policy and laws, and attempting to enshrine religious belief in law, consistently and wantonly ignore the separation of Church and state. So when a christian complains they are discriminated against it is laughable.
Religious tolerance? Does that mean you can't be asked to explain your beliefs or challenged about their validity?Every church I know of in the U.S. has a "missionary" group they support financially. That means you condone with your tithes religious intolerance. Missionaries do not just go out and build houses or give vaccinations. Their explicit purpose is to bring new converts into their religion.
This goes beyond questions and challenges about beliefs, this is institutionalized proselytizing, not respect for other cultures and their beliefs.
I have never understood the ability of Christians to deny the old testament, or say it is "less than". Is it not included in your bible? Was that a mistake? Why did those religious men include it if they doubted it's veracity? Is it not the word of god?
Are you saying that man determines the word of god? Interesting.
So if you say the old testament "got it wrong" or "we understand things differently now", then doesn't that call into question every part of the bible? Doesn't that make it just a man-made story and not the actual word of god?
Shanna you are exactly right. Here in the US, Christianity has been in the majority, and because of that they have enjoyed the power associated with it.
I'm so sick of christians acting like they are victims. Look at the numbers. .. hell forget the numbers and pay attention to what is happening in the world around you. There is still a stigma attached to be being atheist or of any faith that isn't mainstream (I'm pagan and I face it all the time). Atheist and people with different beliefs have faced scrutiny for hundreds of years. Now people question some Christian beliefs in the past what 20 or 25 years and you want to play victim? If you want others to respect your beliefs then you need to show respect for theirs. Sorry for the rant. That is just one of those things that get to me. Also sorry for any typos. I'm on my phone.
Rachel - questioning is not a bad thing. For example, Christianity teaches that all good people go to heaven when they die and all bad people go to a fiery hell. In other words, when you die, you are really not dead, you are still living on somewhere, either in a good place or a bad place.
I've always wondered how Christianity can have that as it's main doctrine, and yet still say they believe in the Bible.
The Bible does not support that belief.
"The righteous themselves will possess THE EARTH and they shall reside forever UPON IT". Psalms 37:29
"The dead are conscious of nothing at all - when they die, on that day their thoughts do perish". Ecclesiastes 9:5.
"The soul that is sinning, it itself will DIE" Ezekiel 18:4 (not live on somewhere else).
John 5:28 & 29 describes a resurrection of all the dead from their memorial tombs. If they are still in their tombs, how are they also in heaven? And if they are in heaven immediately upon dying, then why would they need to be resurrected?
Even the Lord's Prayer in Matthew says to pray for god's kingdom to come and his will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven - not IN HEAVEN.
This inconsistency is one reason why I left the church and organized religion. It's just not logical.
Just because you have been taught something all your life doesn't mean it is true. Think for yourself and come to a logical conclusion. "It ain't necessarily so" - to quote Ira Gershwin.
Shanna wrote: "So let me get this straight, say you find some good points in Buddhism and adopt some of their meditations, this makes you a buddhist... "
I think it really depends....
I started doing research on "Atheism" at the end of the summer and have done so off and on since. Something struck me as I read more and more. A lot of what I found on the AA site and in some writings had been here. For months. Over and over again. Some non-believers, not all and not most, had made those same exact points, word for word. It was also a pretty consistent thing. Consistently using the same phrases, point-by-point, and employing the tactics encouraged. Given that, it seemed to me that there's a certain Atheist ideology, at least for some. As I said, when one consistently uses the exact same phrases and tactics as employed by another person or group, I think one is following an ideology. But, I'll think on that.
If I did some reading and started meditating with the Buddhists in my area, would that make me a Buddhist? No, not necessarily. But, if in many of my conversations on this thread and/or in many of my conversations in life, I constantly used the same words and phrases as used by some Buddhists who were instructing me and encouraged people to leave their stressful lives in order to meditate, and talked about Buddhist meditation and how much better my life is by comparison, one might wonder. Maybe I'd be an inherent to meditation versus Buddhism. I suppose there might even be an ideology of sorts within meditation ... at least with regard to the different forms/styles of meditation, etc.... So, I might be following and promoting a certain ideology, yes.
But, if I just picked up meditation and practiced it and only mentioned to my friends and family that I meditate, I likely wouldn't be. Just as some non-believers, who use their own words and don't employ the tactics suggested by AA and some authors, aren't following a specific ideology.
Regarding ideology, .... I don't think one needs to believe in a God to have an ideology. I'm aware non-believers don't have gods ... don't create gods.
I think it really depends....
I started doing research on "Atheism" at the end of the summer and have done so off and on since. Something struck me as I read more and more. A lot of what I found on the AA site and in some writings had been here. For months. Over and over again. Some non-believers, not all and not most, had made those same exact points, word for word. It was also a pretty consistent thing. Consistently using the same phrases, point-by-point, and employing the tactics encouraged. Given that, it seemed to me that there's a certain Atheist ideology, at least for some. As I said, when one consistently uses the exact same phrases and tactics as employed by another person or group, I think one is following an ideology. But, I'll think on that.
If I did some reading and started meditating with the Buddhists in my area, would that make me a Buddhist? No, not necessarily. But, if in many of my conversations on this thread and/or in many of my conversations in life, I constantly used the same words and phrases as used by some Buddhists who were instructing me and encouraged people to leave their stressful lives in order to meditate, and talked about Buddhist meditation and how much better my life is by comparison, one might wonder. Maybe I'd be an inherent to meditation versus Buddhism. I suppose there might even be an ideology of sorts within meditation ... at least with regard to the different forms/styles of meditation, etc.... So, I might be following and promoting a certain ideology, yes.
But, if I just picked up meditation and practiced it and only mentioned to my friends and family that I meditate, I likely wouldn't be. Just as some non-believers, who use their own words and don't employ the tactics suggested by AA and some authors, aren't following a specific ideology.
Regarding ideology, .... I don't think one needs to believe in a God to have an ideology. I'm aware non-believers don't have gods ... don't create gods.
Leslie wrote: I'm so sick of christians acting like they are victims. I don't think 'I' do.
Look at the numbers. ..
Ok
hell forget the numbers
....forgotten
and pay attention to what is happening in the world around you..
Yes?
There is still a stigma attached to be being atheist or of any faith that isn't mainstream ."
The real victims.
Shannon can you give a short list of the talking points you are talking about?
I think arguing with idiots is useless, I will never be able to have see my point of view so it useless to continue having a discussion on this topic, I won't quit believing just because they prove the the bible was written by men, faith is something that can't be proven , Sometimes people have sought out the answers, and not taken the answer that was fed to them as a baby.
Religion is not evil it is the people that corrupt it, and science can't give you hope compassion love acceptance mercy or grace .
I hope you all enjoy:D
Shanna wrote: "And it's special pleading, this criticism of atheist mocking. Why do religious beliefs automatically get respect?"Beliefs must be respected, but the people who keep claiming atheism is a belief, also see it as the exception to that rule.
it's a bit twisty-turny for my little brain, but since it's said by the same people that say it's okay to cherry pick the word of god I can't say it is surprising.
Rachel wrote: "Also, what ever happened to religious tolerance? We have it for every other belief except Christianity? Why can't we accept each other and love each other based on the fact that we are human and d..."I'm equally intolerant of all religions.
christians are the majority, and on this thread the most vocal so they get special attention.
Rachel wrote: "I think arguing with idiots is useless, I will never be able to have see my point of view so it useless to continue having a discussion on this topic, I won't quit believing just because they prov..."Rachel - before you go, I'd like to hear your comments on my post above #11109.
And by the way, just because someone can't or won't see your point of view does not make them an idiot. That is a really nasty, un-Christian thing for you to say. I don't believe that type of behavior is condoned in the Bible.
Rachel wrote: "I think arguing with idiots is useless, I will never be able to have see my point of view so it useless to continue having a discussion on this topic, I won't quit believing just because they prov..."I think it's disrespectful for you to call people who believe differently than you idiots.
You are right that science can't teach "hope compassion love acceptance mercy or grace" but that doesn't mean you need religion to teach those things. IMO those qualities are a part of human nature and would be there regardless of if religion were in the world.
Rachel wrote: "Also, what ever happened to religious tolerance? We have it for every other belief except Christianity?" I haven't seen anyone here be intolerant of Christianity. Asking someone to explain why/how they could believe a non-Biblical doctrine, such as the soul living on in heaven or hell, or the ridiculous Trinity nonsense is not intolerant.
If you believe something, you should at least be able to say where you get that belief from, especially if you claim your beliefs come from the Bible. In what book, chapter and verse do you find the word Trinity?
I cited chapters and verses in my previous posts and so far no "Christians" have made any effort to say I'm wrong. Probably because they know I'm right, and just don't want to stop believing what they've been taught all their lives - for fear of making their family or friends mad at them.
Saying you no longer believe non-Biblical doctrines at the risk of being shunned by family and friends takes courage and self confidence. It's hard.
Rachel wrote: "I think arguing with idiots is useless, I will never be able to have see my point of view so it useless to continue having a discussion on this topic, I won't quit believing just because they prov..."
Ohhh....
I understand your frustration, Rachael.
Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful. When I first started watching this thread and posting, it seemed very disrespectful to question people's beliefs ... due to my culture. Some American Indians are taught never to question a person's spiritual beliefs. I know some who have little good to say of the Christian religion, for obvious reasons. But, they don't, the people I know, discuss their negative views among Christians and don't question their belief. Then, there was the other part of my culture. Growing up in New England and in a very liberal state, with believers and non-believers in my neighborhood; Christians of all denominations and Jewish families. I was raised in a very "live and let live" sort of fashion.
Having said that, there are times when some non-believers are very disrespectful. Whether or not they're following the call of certain Atheist groups and leaders to intentionally be as disrespectful as possible in order to "splash water" in the face of intelligent believers to wake them from their religious "stupor" ... I don't know. I suppose they likely could be unintentionally disrespectful or disrespectful of their own accord.
However, I will say this .... It's not been my experience that they're idiots. I get the frustration and wanting to lash out, especially if one is treated poorly or unjustly, but .... I've been here awhile and many of the people here are quite intelligent. Whether or not some of them play nice or not is another topic, but they're not idiots.
Ohhh....
I understand your frustration, Rachael.
Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful. When I first started watching this thread and posting, it seemed very disrespectful to question people's beliefs ... due to my culture. Some American Indians are taught never to question a person's spiritual beliefs. I know some who have little good to say of the Christian religion, for obvious reasons. But, they don't, the people I know, discuss their negative views among Christians and don't question their belief. Then, there was the other part of my culture. Growing up in New England and in a very liberal state, with believers and non-believers in my neighborhood; Christians of all denominations and Jewish families. I was raised in a very "live and let live" sort of fashion.
Having said that, there are times when some non-believers are very disrespectful. Whether or not they're following the call of certain Atheist groups and leaders to intentionally be as disrespectful as possible in order to "splash water" in the face of intelligent believers to wake them from their religious "stupor" ... I don't know. I suppose they likely could be unintentionally disrespectful or disrespectful of their own accord.
However, I will say this .... It's not been my experience that they're idiots. I get the frustration and wanting to lash out, especially if one is treated poorly or unjustly, but .... I've been here awhile and many of the people here are quite intelligent. Whether or not some of them play nice or not is another topic, but they're not idiots.
I'd rather someone tell me that their spiritual beliefs are personal and would rather not discuss them in a forum such as this, than have them call me an idiot and say "how dare you question my beliefs!"Everyone has a right to ask a question, and hopefully they do it in a respectful manner (they don't always). Everyone also has the right to say they don't want to answer that question, and not be expected to give a reason why.
Mary wrote: "Shannon can you give a short list of the talking points you are talking about?"
I could, but ....
One of the key things is something I've already referenced in this discussion. The contention that most believers are challenged, intellectually, and are beyond hope and not worth the effort. However, there was a call to find intelligent believers and, intentionally, be as disrespectful as possible in order to "splash water" in their faces and wake them from their religious "stupor" ....
Certain words and phrases were used within that, in reference to God, etc... that have been used here on a routine basis.
Some of the arguments to use against different religions and believers were listed on the AA site, for one, including a drop-down menu of possible topics and arguments. Those very same arguments have been used here. Some have been discussed in the literature of various Atheists.
A couple things ....
First, if you've not been here over the past several months to a year, you'd not know if those phrases and arguments were made or not. I could give you a list, but ....
Second, it would be best to read it for yourself. Unfortunately, as I said, they cleansed their site. You could go back to the discussion when it happened. I'd say it was between August and September. That included different talking points, etc...., with quotes and our discussion at the time. However, that would be a lot of work on your part. You might or might not want to go back that far and do that reading. Time investment. I, for one, am not going to go back and pull that information for you. Time investment.
Finally, I don't know if it would be wise for me to publish a list of every talking point that has been made by various leaders and organizations within Atheism and every incident in which those same things, word for word, were argued here. I'd look like a sh*t.
But, you can verify, if you choose, by going back to August/September, maybe October, and reading through. You'll see it all there. I'm not going to repeat it in that kind of detail here.
I could, but ....
One of the key things is something I've already referenced in this discussion. The contention that most believers are challenged, intellectually, and are beyond hope and not worth the effort. However, there was a call to find intelligent believers and, intentionally, be as disrespectful as possible in order to "splash water" in their faces and wake them from their religious "stupor" ....
Certain words and phrases were used within that, in reference to God, etc... that have been used here on a routine basis.
Some of the arguments to use against different religions and believers were listed on the AA site, for one, including a drop-down menu of possible topics and arguments. Those very same arguments have been used here. Some have been discussed in the literature of various Atheists.
A couple things ....
First, if you've not been here over the past several months to a year, you'd not know if those phrases and arguments were made or not. I could give you a list, but ....
Second, it would be best to read it for yourself. Unfortunately, as I said, they cleansed their site. You could go back to the discussion when it happened. I'd say it was between August and September. That included different talking points, etc...., with quotes and our discussion at the time. However, that would be a lot of work on your part. You might or might not want to go back that far and do that reading. Time investment. I, for one, am not going to go back and pull that information for you. Time investment.
Finally, I don't know if it would be wise for me to publish a list of every talking point that has been made by various leaders and organizations within Atheism and every incident in which those same things, word for word, were argued here. I'd look like a sh*t.
But, you can verify, if you choose, by going back to August/September, maybe October, and reading through. You'll see it all there. I'm not going to repeat it in that kind of detail here.
Maria wrote: "Side note: I have always found it interesting that Christianity is the only religion (that I am aware of) that refers to it's god as "God", as opposed to any actual name. A Muslim will say, I w..."
Hi, I have noticed that a lot of people in this thread keep referring to The Buddha as a God. He was not a God. He was a Human by the name of Siddhartha Gautama who found the path to enlightenment and taught it to others. Most Buddhists do not even believe in a God.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Shannon can you give a short list of the talking points you are talking about?"I could, but ....
One of the key things is something I've already referenced in this discussion. The ..."
So that's a no? You are making a claim and not backing it up? Okay good to know.
You say you notice a common thread, a repetition of terms and people expressing the same talking points verbatim....but I'm supposed to discover these things you object to for myself? How am I supposed to know which points you hear over and over, unless you tell me yourself?
Sounds a lot like you made a claim that there is some big "atheist conspiracy" to be mean to believers. But you refuse to back it up.
As was pointed out to you, the site you referenced has 2200 members. Hardly a majority of anything.
Should I then go to the Westboro Baptist website, read what they say, and extrapolate that to mean that all Baptists, or even all Protestants believe as they do?
I think you've been caught throwing out a claim as fact when it is really not based on any factual evidence at all.
Rachel wrote: "I think arguing with idiots is useless, I will never be able to have see my point of view so it useless to continue having a discussion on this topic, I won't quit believing just because they prov..."Nice Christian attitude.
I think it really depends....I started doing research on "Atheism" at the end of the summer and have done so off and on since. Something struck me as I read more and more. A lot of what I found on the AA site and in some writings had been here. For months. Over and over again. Some non-believers, not all and not most, had made those same exact points, word for word. It was also a pretty consistent thing. Consistently using the same phrases, point-by-point, and employing the tactics encouraged. Given that, it seemed to me that there's a certain Atheist ideology, at least for some. As I said, when one consistently uses the exact same phrases and tactics as employed by another person or group, I think one is following an ideology. But, I'll think on that.
Chicken or egg? Do those words and phrases belong to the American Atheists or are they common to all atheism and just memorialized in writing on their site? As for "tactics" is mocking beliefs exclusive to atheists?
If I did some reading and started meditating with the Buddhists in my area, would that make me a Buddhist? No, not necessarily. But, if in many of my conversations on this thread and/or in many of my conversations in life, I constantly used the same words and phrases as used by some Buddhists who were instructing me and encouraged people to leave their stressful lives in order to meditate, and talked about Buddhist meditation and how much better my life is by comparison, one might wonder. Maybe I'd be an inherent to meditation versus Buddhism. I suppose there might even be an ideology of sorts within meditation ... at least with regard to the different forms/styles of meditation, etc.... So, I might be following and promoting a certain ideology, yes.
But, if I just picked up meditation and practiced it and only mentioned to my friends and family that I meditate, I likely wouldn't be. Just as some non-believers, who use their own words and don't employ the tactics suggested by AA and some authors, aren't following a specific ideology.
What atheist ideology? it is the answer to a question...
Again with the tactics, since the only tactic you've mention is the mocking splash of water I ask you again do you really think people need to be instructed to mock what they find ridiculous?
Regarding ideology, .... I don't think one needs to believe in a God to have an ideology. I'm aware non-believers don't have gods ... don't create gods.
Okay ShannonI'm about to make a claim.
I am going to state that Christians often get together to talk about how to talk to non-believers to get them to believe in their god.
Yes, I am also going to say, that churches and groups make, produce and distribute videos about this subject.
I am going to say they use key words and to "splash water" in the face (besides the literal baptismal and holy water) of non-believers to change them over to the Christian ideology.
And.....drumrolll.....here is just a short list of my proof ( no cleansed sites here)
Many use these same phrases and talking points when questioning and mocking non-believers.
http://www.csosports.org/7-tips-when-...
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/20...
http://bibleforums.org/archive/index....
Haha this one is a goodreads thread!!
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
http://www.openbible.info/topics/non_...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread...
http://www.ehow.com/how_2101934_talk-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiXVzS...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jxBlE...
There are literally pages of links on this topic.
Discuss....
Mary wrote: "So that's a no? You are making a claim and not backing it up? Okay good to know."
Actually, that's a ....
That discussion exists, in detail and at length, in the pages dating back to August, September and October.
You can spend the time and do the work to look it up yourself. It's there.
I'm not going to spend the time and work required to do that for you, Mary.
I've given you the place to look. Look or don't look. That's your choice. But, I'm not going to do that kind of work for you at this time.
Which, ... is entirely different from refusing to answer or not giving you information to prove my claim. The proof is there. Look for it starting in August. Or not.
Actually, that's a ....
That discussion exists, in detail and at length, in the pages dating back to August, September and October.
You can spend the time and do the work to look it up yourself. It's there.
I'm not going to spend the time and work required to do that for you, Mary.
I've given you the place to look. Look or don't look. That's your choice. But, I'm not going to do that kind of work for you at this time.
Which, ... is entirely different from refusing to answer or not giving you information to prove my claim. The proof is there. Look for it starting in August. Or not.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "So that's a no? You are making a claim and not backing it up? Okay good to know."Actually, that's a ....
That discussion exists, in detail and at length, in the pages dating back to..."
Shannon, you are too funny.
You make a claim. Then refuse to back it up. The you say I have to do the research. Can't you see how that might sound like avoidance....especially since you are the only one who knows exactly which phrases you are talking about.
Too funny.
Mary wrote: "Okay Shannon
I'm about to make a claim.
I am going to state that Christians often get together to talk about how to talk to non-believers to get them to believe in their god.
Yes, I am also going t..."
I made a claim months ago and included sources and had a discussion. I'm not going to recreate and/or find and copy and paste that work again.
Regarding some Christians being horrid, ....
I'm really not surprised.
I've not looked at the clips you've given. Not because I don't value the time you took to put that together. It's just that I believe you. I can imagine that some Christians do that. Some Christians, like many other people, have an ideology, of which I'm well aware. Further, some do all sorts of things to promote, foster, and protect that ideology.
That's not in dispute.
Further, I know some Christians who use the same lingo, phrases, etc... They don't talk from their minds and experiences ... thinking and discussing as they go. They have a bunch of catchphrases that are, frankly, overused.
I'm disturbed when I hear that sort of talk.
I've had discussions and arguments with family members who have used such arguments. One of the key discussions hinges around the typical argument against non-believers. Morality. I start by discussing. Sometimes, that's where it ends. The person says s/he never thought about it ... just accepted the "fact" that we are moral due to our religious beliefs. However, when a couple started throwing scripture at me and different catchphrases, I recall asking them to talk to me with their own words and not regurgitate the words of the TV evangelist they were mimicking. That didn't end well.
Regarding the point that originated this discussion, ....
Some non-believers question believers, especially the Bible, etc..., based on logic and inconstancies. True. Very true.
That's not the full picture.
Some go forth, being as disrespectful as possible, in order to "wake" people up. The AA only has 2,000 members. Okay. Much of what I saw on their site wasn't original or specific to them. Some of it was, but I was surprised when I found some of it in leading "Atheist" literature.
It would be difficult for us to discuss that now. All of their drop down menus for what to say to whom when are all of a sudden gone. Were there for months, maybe years. Gone. One needs to become a member. So, really, the one thing to do is go back in the thread to the discussion that took place, with sources and quotes. I don't trust my memory to recreate that and get it right. I'm not going to go back and find it all for you.
I'm about to make a claim.
I am going to state that Christians often get together to talk about how to talk to non-believers to get them to believe in their god.
Yes, I am also going t..."
I made a claim months ago and included sources and had a discussion. I'm not going to recreate and/or find and copy and paste that work again.
Regarding some Christians being horrid, ....
I'm really not surprised.
I've not looked at the clips you've given. Not because I don't value the time you took to put that together. It's just that I believe you. I can imagine that some Christians do that. Some Christians, like many other people, have an ideology, of which I'm well aware. Further, some do all sorts of things to promote, foster, and protect that ideology.
That's not in dispute.
Further, I know some Christians who use the same lingo, phrases, etc... They don't talk from their minds and experiences ... thinking and discussing as they go. They have a bunch of catchphrases that are, frankly, overused.
I'm disturbed when I hear that sort of talk.
I've had discussions and arguments with family members who have used such arguments. One of the key discussions hinges around the typical argument against non-believers. Morality. I start by discussing. Sometimes, that's where it ends. The person says s/he never thought about it ... just accepted the "fact" that we are moral due to our religious beliefs. However, when a couple started throwing scripture at me and different catchphrases, I recall asking them to talk to me with their own words and not regurgitate the words of the TV evangelist they were mimicking. That didn't end well.
Regarding the point that originated this discussion, ....
Some non-believers question believers, especially the Bible, etc..., based on logic and inconstancies. True. Very true.
That's not the full picture.
Some go forth, being as disrespectful as possible, in order to "wake" people up. The AA only has 2,000 members. Okay. Much of what I saw on their site wasn't original or specific to them. Some of it was, but I was surprised when I found some of it in leading "Atheist" literature.
It would be difficult for us to discuss that now. All of their drop down menus for what to say to whom when are all of a sudden gone. Were there for months, maybe years. Gone. One needs to become a member. So, really, the one thing to do is go back in the thread to the discussion that took place, with sources and quotes. I don't trust my memory to recreate that and get it right. I'm not going to go back and find it all for you.
Shanna wrote: "Chicken or egg? Do those words and phrases belong to the American Atheists or are they common to all atheism and just memorialized in writing on their site? As for "tactics" is mocking beliefs exclusive to atheists?"
Oh, actually, I believe that's correct.
When I read the different things on the AA site, I was surprised. Many of the things had been said here. I thought the people who were saying the things here were talking off-the-cuff. I was surprised to find the info, in exact phrases, on the AA site and thought it, perhaps, originated there. However, when I recently started reading other "Atheist" literature, I found a lot of what was on the AA site in those books.
That's when and why I began to think there was an "Atheist" ideology, at least for some.
Regarding the tactic of mocking holy books, beliefs, groups of people, etc....
No, but heck, no! That's not exclusive to non-believers. Believers do it. All sorts of groups of people do it. Sadly, it's a tactic employed by believers and non-believers, different political parties, etc....
I don't question that for a second.
The fact remains .... Yes, some non-believers simply question believers based on logic and inconstancies. No disrespect there. That's not the full picture, though. Some purposely use a disrespectful tone; they set out to do so.
Oh, actually, I believe that's correct.
When I read the different things on the AA site, I was surprised. Many of the things had been said here. I thought the people who were saying the things here were talking off-the-cuff. I was surprised to find the info, in exact phrases, on the AA site and thought it, perhaps, originated there. However, when I recently started reading other "Atheist" literature, I found a lot of what was on the AA site in those books.
That's when and why I began to think there was an "Atheist" ideology, at least for some.
Regarding the tactic of mocking holy books, beliefs, groups of people, etc....
No, but heck, no! That's not exclusive to non-believers. Believers do it. All sorts of groups of people do it. Sadly, it's a tactic employed by believers and non-believers, different political parties, etc....
I don't question that for a second.
The fact remains .... Yes, some non-believers simply question believers based on logic and inconstancies. No disrespect there. That's not the full picture, though. Some purposely use a disrespectful tone; they set out to do so.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Okay ShannonI'm about to make a claim.
I am going to state that Christians often get together to talk about how to talk to non-believers to get them to believe in their god.
Yes, I am..."
Shannon,
I have personally seen the tenacity and persistence in which you pursue a poster who you think refuses to answer your question.
Now you make a claim, but refuse to back it up.
Can you not see the irony here?
Shanna wrote: "Again with the tactics, since the only tactic you've mention is the mocking splash of water I ask you again do you really think people need to be instructed to mock what they find ridiculous?
"
Probably not.
But, ... that would mean some non-believers mock believers and/or their beliefs because they find them ridiculous versus simply questioning based on logic and inconstancies....
Yeah, I guess some likely do it all on their own.
I'm guessing others heed the clarion call.
"
Probably not.
But, ... that would mean some non-believers mock believers and/or their beliefs because they find them ridiculous versus simply questioning based on logic and inconstancies....
Yeah, I guess some likely do it all on their own.
I'm guessing others heed the clarion call.
Mary wrote: "Shannon,
I have personally seen the tenacity and persistence in which you pursue a poster who you think refuses to answer your question.
Now you make a claim, but refuse to back it up.
Can you not see the irony here? "
Is there?
The difference, of course, is the fact that those posters had never answered the questions asked; they didn't ask me to go back to a certain month or months and read the answers there.
If they had, I likely would have gone back and read for myself.
There is a difference. But, hey, if you feel it's the same thing, that's cool.
I have personally seen the tenacity and persistence in which you pursue a poster who you think refuses to answer your question.
Now you make a claim, but refuse to back it up.
Can you not see the irony here? "
Is there?
The difference, of course, is the fact that those posters had never answered the questions asked; they didn't ask me to go back to a certain month or months and read the answers there.
If they had, I likely would have gone back and read for myself.
There is a difference. But, hey, if you feel it's the same thing, that's cool.
Some may well just mock because they find it ridiculous, but that is their perogative and beliefs by virtue of someone holding them as beliefs are not exempt. You seem to be arguing that religious beliefs be accorded a special respect over and above other ideas in the idea marketplace, religion has to earn it just like any other idea.Edit
And who says mocking isn't a valid and effective way to draw attention to the illogics and inconsistencies?
Shanna wrote: "Some may well just mock because they find it ridiculous, but that is their perogative and beliefs by virtue of someone holding them as beliefs are not exempt. You seem to be arguing that religious ..."
Out of curiosity, did you read my post to Rachael?
Further, did you read the parts of my posts that said some non-believers question based on logic and inconsistencies? It was originally "many" but Cerebus asked for a change.
My posts do not, in any way, say that. It's not in the words or between the lines.
If you want to be the author of my words and my point, I guess that's your prerogative.
But, I find it shocking that you're ignoring evidence.
Out of curiosity, did you read my post to Rachael?
Further, did you read the parts of my posts that said some non-believers question based on logic and inconsistencies? It was originally "many" but Cerebus asked for a change.
My posts do not, in any way, say that. It's not in the words or between the lines.
If you want to be the author of my words and my point, I guess that's your prerogative.
But, I find it shocking that you're ignoring evidence.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Some may well just mock because they find it ridiculous, but that is their perogative and beliefs by virtue of someone holding them as beliefs are not exempt. You seem to be arguing ..."I did read it.
Sorry, what evidence?
I only say you seem to be asking for special respect for beliefs because you are complaining that people are mocking beliefs, why do religious beliefs in your estimation require that people shouldn't mock them.
I guess I'll stop posting here since everyone seems to just ignore me. How do you join the club of people who's posts get responded to?
Shanna wrote: "I did read it.
Sorry, what evidence? "
Okay....
So, you just said, "You seem to be arguing that religious beliefs be accorded a special respect over and above other ideas in the idea marketplace, religion has to earn it just like any other idea."
In my post to Rachael, I said,
"Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful."
Further, I've said several times that some, though it's likely really many, non-believers question based on logic and inconsistency. (In the past, as you're aware, I've admitted my belief isn't "logical" and I have no proof; I've also acknowledged inconsistencies.)
Then, there's Post 11130 to Mary where I answer her question about believers and whether or not they use tactics, etc... against non-believers. I said I was very aware and detailed discussions and arguments I've had with family members who have made inappropriate statements against non-believers.
I said,
"Further, I know some Christians who use the same lingo, phrases, etc... They don't talk from their minds and experiences ... thinking and discussing as they go. They have a bunch of catchphrases that are, frankly, overused.
I'm disturbed when I hear that sort of talk.
I've had discussions and arguments with family members who have used such arguments. One of the key discussions hinges around the typical argument against non-believers. Morality. I start by discussing. Sometimes, that's where it ends. The person says s/he never thought about it ... just accepted the "fact" that we are moral due to our religious beliefs. However, when a couple started throwing scripture at me and different catchphrases, I recall asking them to talk to me with their own words and not regurgitate the words of the TV evangelist they were mimicking. That didn't end well."
That evidence. I'm not sure how, given that, you think I'm arguing that religious beliefs be given special respect.
I'm saying ... though I'll amend it ... is ....
While some question believers and the Bible based on logic and inconsistencies, others intentionally do so disrespectfully with the express purpose of being disrespectful. Of the latter, some do so because they think believers and/or beliefs are ridiculous and some because there is a clarion call for them to do so.
Sorry, what evidence? "
Okay....
So, you just said, "You seem to be arguing that religious beliefs be accorded a special respect over and above other ideas in the idea marketplace, religion has to earn it just like any other idea."
In my post to Rachael, I said,
"Sometimes when non-believers question believers here, it seems disrespectful. I say it "seems" disrespectful for a reason. Something I've learned here, from non-believers ... simply questioning believers and religion isn't, in itself, disrespectful."
Further, I've said several times that some, though it's likely really many, non-believers question based on logic and inconsistency. (In the past, as you're aware, I've admitted my belief isn't "logical" and I have no proof; I've also acknowledged inconsistencies.)
Then, there's Post 11130 to Mary where I answer her question about believers and whether or not they use tactics, etc... against non-believers. I said I was very aware and detailed discussions and arguments I've had with family members who have made inappropriate statements against non-believers.
I said,
"Further, I know some Christians who use the same lingo, phrases, etc... They don't talk from their minds and experiences ... thinking and discussing as they go. They have a bunch of catchphrases that are, frankly, overused.
I'm disturbed when I hear that sort of talk.
I've had discussions and arguments with family members who have used such arguments. One of the key discussions hinges around the typical argument against non-believers. Morality. I start by discussing. Sometimes, that's where it ends. The person says s/he never thought about it ... just accepted the "fact" that we are moral due to our religious beliefs. However, when a couple started throwing scripture at me and different catchphrases, I recall asking them to talk to me with their own words and not regurgitate the words of the TV evangelist they were mimicking. That didn't end well."
That evidence. I'm not sure how, given that, you think I'm arguing that religious beliefs be given special respect.
I'm saying ... though I'll amend it ... is ....
While some question believers and the Bible based on logic and inconsistencies, others intentionally do so disrespectfully with the express purpose of being disrespectful. Of the latter, some do so because they think believers and/or beliefs are ridiculous and some because there is a clarion call for them to do so.
Okay MariaI agree with everything you've said so far. I like what you have to say.
Shanna wrote: "you are complaining that people are mocking beliefs, why do religious beliefs in your estimation require that people shouldn't mock them. "
No, I wasn't complaining. Rachael made a complaint.
I made a simple statement. While some non-believers question based on logic and inconsistency, some set out to be intentionally disrespectful to believers regarding beliefs in order to answer the call to wake the intelligent believers. I've since amended that to include non-believers who are disrespectful because they think believers and/or beliefs are ridiculous.
That's not complaining. It's stating a fact. I've changed "many" to some, in both instances, per a suggestion by Cerebus. I've changed the original to include non-believers thinking religion is ridiculous per your suggestion.
Where, in all of this and in my post to Rachael, Mary, and you have I complained or said religion should be given special treatment or respect?
No, I wasn't complaining. Rachael made a complaint.
I made a simple statement. While some non-believers question based on logic and inconsistency, some set out to be intentionally disrespectful to believers regarding beliefs in order to answer the call to wake the intelligent believers. I've since amended that to include non-believers who are disrespectful because they think believers and/or beliefs are ridiculous.
That's not complaining. It's stating a fact. I've changed "many" to some, in both instances, per a suggestion by Cerebus. I've changed the original to include non-believers thinking religion is ridiculous per your suggestion.
Where, in all of this and in my post to Rachael, Mary, and you have I complained or said religion should be given special treatment or respect?
Mary wrote: "Okay MariaI agree with everything you've said so far. I like what you have to say."
I feel the love! :)
Maria wrote: "I guess I'll stop posting here since everyone seems to just ignore me. How do you join the club of people who's posts get responded to?"I didn't respond mostly because your post seemed directed at a specific person, but I have enjoyed them.
Science & religion coincide with each other considering that where science doesn't have all the answers, religion steps in! Religion is based on faith whereas science is the facts. Prior to the emergence of science, religion used to be a cause for explaining the natural disasters & events that couldn't be fathomed.
While some question believers and the Bible based on logic and inconsistencies, others intentionally do so disrespectfully with the express purpose of being disrespectful. Of the latter, some do so because they think believers and/or beliefs are ridiculous and some because there is a clarion call for them to do so.I don't think there is any such clarion (love the word clarion) call, there isn't an atheist authority or heirachy. I think in general atheists aren't really as organised a group as you might think. Atheists really only agree on one point whether or not they accept the existence of a god/s. After that atheists range all along the spectrum
Shanna wrote: "I don't think there is any such clarion (love the word clarion) call, "
I disagree, given what I've read.
Further, my making that statement isn't a complaint or a demand that religions be given special respect.
I disagree, given what I've read.
Further, my making that statement isn't a complaint or a demand that religions be given special respect.
There isn't an atheist authority or hierarchy to issue such a call...
Thanks, Shanna. Shannon is ignoring me because I did specifically call her out - I expected that. But I would like to talk to the rest if you!
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I don't think there is any such clarion (love the word clarion) call, "I disagree, given what I've read.
Further, my making that statement isn't a complaint or a demand that re..."
And could you give us examples of what you've read to so we know what you are talking about?
Maria wrote: "Thanks, Shanna. Shannon is ignoring me because I did specifically call her out - I expected that. But I would like to talk to the rest if you!"
I'm not choosing not to respond due to being called out. I've been called out before and, when the person was dead-on, I admitted my mistake and apologized. In point of fact, I've even called myself out ... admitted and apologized for whatever I was wrong about.
I'm not responding to last night's post for a reason. I don't want to respond in kind. I fear I would. I'm choosing not to.
I'm not choosing not to respond due to being called out. I've been called out before and, when the person was dead-on, I admitted my mistake and apologized. In point of fact, I've even called myself out ... admitted and apologized for whatever I was wrong about.
I'm not responding to last night's post for a reason. I don't want to respond in kind. I fear I would. I'm choosing not to.
Mary wrote: "And could you give us examples of what you've read to so we know what you are talking about? "
Yes.
I've already given you an example of what I'm talking about.
Yes.
I've already given you an example of what I'm talking about.
Shannon - we are really more alike than not - seriously - truce?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Religious tolerance does not mean not questioning religion, not does it mean sitting quietly by when it is used (by some, no idea what y..."
Question all you want but try to be respectful if other have a different point of view. Who doesn't have equal rights?