|
Post by Death on Mar 15, 2009 6:04:46 GMT -5
Amike, not all religions and churches do everything on the list I wrote out, but there are some things they do all do. Like arrogate the natural good nature of mankind to a supernatural origin. Religion in America is like politics in America, what you think is moderate is still extreme by the standards of other predominantly christian countries. Fundamentalism is becoming the norm if it isn't already. Now there you and I see eye to eye. Having lived in Germany, Denmark and Belgium for 3 years and spending a lot of time in Canuckle-land (that was be Canada for you non-North Americans), the extreme Fundamentalist sect within America is outright batshit crazy. Thankfully it's mostly centralized within the Bible Belt (from the southern Gulf states up through the north-central plains) but yeah, they love mixing their religion and government. Thankfully the dense urban centers are offsetting their influence but it does make things interesting come voting time. Sadly, what turns out to be a minority group within America is having a large impact on America falling so far behind in areas like education and research while at the same time, promoting some bizarre fear syndrome that if you aren't Fundie you are out to kill America. Makes me want to move back to Germany some times. Like all media, I think what you see on TV isn't an honest representation of the US. I've spent time in Bahrain, Qatar, UAE/Dubai (god I used to love Dubai, Russian whores everywhere in the hotels), Jordan, Egypt. Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia and not once did I ever see some whacked out Muslim shit like US TV loves to show. In fact everyone I met in those countries were far beyond nice and went out of their way for me and I'm not talking about hotel staff. But I think it's a fair assessment nonetheless since the US does have a large population of whacked-out mindless Bible thumpers who like to stir up shit and make life miserable for everyone else. I hadn't finished with you yet. :evol; You wrote that not all churches disbelieve evolution and that is true, but have missed the point. The very defintion of a religion is a belief in the supernatural. Religious organisations teach their members that they have to use FAITH because logic and reason do not prove , can not prove, the supernatural. All religions teach that. Organisations see the teaching of the use of logic as a threat , who knows, people might start using logic instead of faith and for that reason churches try to supress scientific education. There have been attempts to subvert the use of logic and reason by religion to try to prove their claims, the Scholasts for example, telling members they can use unaided reason to prove their faith. These, with a minimum of fact checking and application of tested logic, are usually revealed to be cheap parlour tricks and false logic. The other thing, and you gave a perfect example, is the use of authority and an expectation of unquestioning acceptance and obedience. Who gives a fuck if you started your own church, who gives if you have been a member of different congregations, that doesn't give your opinion any more weight than anybody else's. Your opinions , at least here at FSTDT, are evaluated for factual content and logic and what you gave are nothing more than anecdotes. And whoop de doo, you spent a few years at what sounds like US bases in Yerp. That too falls into the realm of anecdote and trying to use authority. And using the most recent report from Trinity College, that's a catholic university in case you didn't know, I repeat that fundamentalism is becoming the norm in the US. Overall you don't impress me much other than as a patronising sexually repulsive twit. I'll be back later for more p'wnage.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 15, 2009 6:20:20 GMT -5
Aurormike, my thoughts are similar to Death's here. Not by watching TV (which I've not done in years, and never paid much attention to how religions are depicted there) but from attending churches from different denominations in different states, and paying attention to their doctrines and teachings. I'm even an ordained minister, and in the past have looked into creating a church, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the effects different doctrines and practices have; in fact I'd say it made me more aware of how dangerous and divisive they can be.
Every church I've been to, every single one of them, creates divisiveness between followers and non-followers, between members and non-members, between the "saved" and "un-saved." Every single last one of them teaches that morality comes only through their god, and those without said god are obviously immoral. I have no clue what rock you've hidden yourself under to not see that, unless of course you're completely for such divisiveness, wanting to cause strife between specific believers and "heathens" so as to have more control over said believers.
Going to the positive side of churches, if one wants to run a charity, let them run it as a charity, keeping their religion out of it and so treating it exactly like other non-profit organizations. Having special tax exempt status and allowing their finances to go without oversight simply because they worship one sky-pixie or another is bullshit, because such is not awarded to non-theistic organizations excepting when they follow the strict non-profit guidelines. If, for instance, someone wanted to make an organization exactly like a church, but without the religious beliefs, you can bet your barnacles it'd be taxed. Now tell me, in a country that supposedly has separation of church and state, how is that fair and just? I'll give you a hint: it isn't.
Also, do you know why non-theistic non-profits don't do so well? It's because churches have taught their members to avoid such "evil, corrupt, and immoral" institutions. That is why they're avoided. Churches have convinced their followers, through a variety of means, that to give to an "un-godly" organization is practically spitting in their god's face, no matter what the purpose of the organization is.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 16, 2009 3:49:51 GMT -5
Hold on there, Redhunter! Babe the Blue Ox is retired and living in Minnesota. I used to go there when I was little! We'd take a day and cruise out there to ride the rides.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 16, 2009 4:14:06 GMT -5
I certainly don't mind people with religious convictions but once it moves out of their lives and starts to negatively affect others around them, that's where I think it goes overboard. And the same holds true for atheism. I think the internet only amplifies the issue since everyone can spout off at the mouth without fear of retaliation but that doesn't make it right. I hear this so much. So what does that mean; people should be able to punch an asshole if they don't like what they have to say? "Spout off at the mouth" and the attitude here make it sound as if you find the anonymous aspects of the internet to be inherently bad. Why is that?
I don't know who the writer of a liberal/conservative joke is on the Simpsons... what does it matter? Why can't an idea be presented without it being called cowardly for being anonymous? Why can't ideas stand on their own without needing the option of writing or finding the person who wrote it? Truth be told, there are a number of great virtues that are called out in the New Testament. Granted, a lot of them are common sense. There's also some not so great parts in the New Testament (role of women, acceptance of slavery, disassociation from rival groups, etc). So some of the NT is good, some of what is good is common sense and some is bad.
And you really think that being passionate about THAT is the same as being passionate about atheism? That's absurd. They are not equal. One is a fantastical claim without proof, and even if it WERE true, you admit it's only partially good.
So when someone takes that admittedly flawed, copied and mediocre mindset and calls it "absolutely true" and then actively works to have MY life affected by their personal beliefs which they readily admit they cannot prove... that's the same to you?
No fucking way! No, nada, huh-uh, no way, no fucking how. And I've seen people change for the better once they embrace religion but we all have seen the case where people go, in our minds, ape shit once they embrace religion as well. So it's about the balance. This applies to many things. It's personal responsibility, which religion does a good job of dismissing. So in theory, yes, we should all take responsibility for our own shit. Like atheists that I know, they research their stance and meet the myths of the bible with information, not speculation. Myself, I don't reject the idea of a god. It's not a prove/disprove thing. I would be called a "strong atheist" in that I absolutely reject the notion of the Abrahamic god. But do I reject some higher power that kicked things off, possibly from another dimension or from some aspect of the universe we don't understand yet? Nope, I think it's certainly plausible and the Abrahamic trio are just attempts to explain it and set the groundrules so that if they're right, they'll somehow gain favor. I more or less agree with you. the beginning of the universe COULD be a lot of things as far as I know or will know... not that any of them seem to matter much at this point though. I think atheism, once it becomes an aggressive stance, is equally as dangerous. I'm not keen on group a tearing apart group b, be it verbally or physically, because they disagree. But it's WHY we disagree that you are ignoring. They have nothing but wishful thinking and a book of myths. I don't HAVE to give that respect because there is nothing there. Nothing. It could just as well be about santa claus as there is NOTHING to show for it, even by it's definition!
If your kid said, "I didn't eat the cookies, it was this huge, all powerful, supersmart magician with magical powers that I can't prove exists and no one sees him but me, but you'll just have to trust me he exists", you'd send him to his room for lying.
This story doesn't wash, and they admit they can't prove it! "If there was proof, we wouldn't have faith!"
So by its very nature, there IS no proof.
So how is the ones not believing the goofy story as "dangerous" as the ones who believe in this fantasy and actually are the majority, influencing elections and stopping the passage of things like Prop 8?
Religionists are making the claims. I, as an atheist, don't believe them and if THEY come to me and push THEIR religion on me and I push back, I'm just as bad? That's madness dude, completely fucking mad.And two wrongs have never made a right. So if a hardcore fundie were to engage me in a conversation/debate, I'd kindly tell them why I don't believe, share my experience and when they condemn me to hell and get all bat shit crazy, I'll just end the conversation. Not all fundies will be douchebags. If anybody is going crazy when speaking to you, it's expected that you might want to end the conversation. But countering or getting into a debate using reason and facts is not the same as what fundies do.
Atheist "fundies" aren't shooting anybody, bombing anything, condemning anyone to hell, calling the other side "lost" or "sinful" and they actually are usually willing to hear the other side of the story, or have heard the other side of the story, instead of merely wanting to preach.
I'll listen to a christian. I'm often ignored outright because I'm an atheist. My lack of THEIR belief doesn't make me look my nose down at christians as human beings.
Therefore I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that a vocal atheist is just as bad as a fundie christian. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same sport.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 16, 2009 4:25:48 GMT -5
I personally don't give a hairy rat's ass what people chose to believe or not to believe. However, the instant that someone's belief system interferes with my personal freedoms, I have a HUGE problem with faith. This includes paying nickel one to support it, which my tax dollars certainly do. By not taxing the businesses that religions are, they ARE infringing on my personal freedom, by forcing me to pay more taxes than I should, with no return for it. Call me militant, radical, whatever, but fair is fair. My money subsidizing something that contributes nothing to society, and, in fact, is generally a detriment to society is patently unfair. Yes, I know all the arguments about the charitable work that churches do, but those "good works" are subsidized by ME, with religious strings attached. We're talking, to misquote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, sucked into the con-job that religion is. sorry, rant over... Don't be sorry. And that's the thing. You're reasonably upset with this. Most people who are paying for other people's shit are going to feel this way. You're a minority in that you're an atheist. So now what, you're opinion doesn't matter? Your dissension to the idea is "radical" or your complaining about it in a concise way by pointing out the problem and why it bothers you is "militant"? ' No fucking way. Like you said, "fair is fair", only it's not. My dissent is called "fundie" but a christian shoots an abortion doctor to get called fundie, or radical, or militant. It's inflammatory rhetoric and it's completely misplaced. Justifiable anger, outrage at unfair practices and vocal dissent are what free people are supposed to have. When fundies or even regular christians complain about teh gayz, they call a protest for equal treatment or a pride parade as being "militant" rabblerousers and such things when they are only trying to get fair treatment and pass on information and awareness. Speaking loudly and/or passionately is NOT militant! And when that is coupled with the fact that there isn't a real convincing case for any god or deity much less the abrahamic one, it's nothing short of a farce. It's like the guy who identifies the elephant in the room and is subsequently shot in the face for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 16, 2009 4:58:30 GMT -5
You're reading skills are poor. I wrote about religions and churches, not about adherants. I wasn't writing about adherants either, I was writing about denominations and orginizations. Not only is it not fair from a honesty standpoint but to all involved, all of Christianity does not eqate to the "Titus 2" woman or "everyone but us are going to hell" group. I mean we disagree, that's fine. But how is being an atheist and hating all form of organized religion, Hating orginized religion is NOT the same as a christian hating atheists as subhuman. You don't sound like a real atheist to me if you are arguing such dumb points. especially when a good chunk of it does not fit into your broad brush stroke, differ from a highly conservative religious right Evangelical Christian painting all atheists/agnostics as inferior or evil or <insert fundie adjective here>? I just think it's sad that hate begets hate and this isn't directed at you, just in general. Listen to me... A christian TELLS me, not asks, TELLS me that I'm wrong. They admit they don't have proof. I say, "I don't believe it BECAUSE there is no proof." They say that I'm going to hell and that I'm not even fully human. I tell them they are basing their decision on their admitted lack of proof.
So who is hating who?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 16, 2009 7:20:20 GMT -5
Aurormike, my thoughts are similar to Death's here. Not by watching TV (which I've not done in years, and never paid much attention to how religions are depicted there) but from attending churches from different denominations in different states, and paying attention to their doctrines and teachings. I'm even an ordained minister, and in the past have looked into creating a church, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the effects different doctrines and practices have; in fact I'd say it made me more aware of how dangerous and divisive they can be. Every church I've been to, every single one of them, creates divisiveness between followers and non-followers, between members and non-members, between the "saved" and "un-saved." Every single last one of them teaches that morality comes only through their god, and those without said god are obviously immoral. I have no clue what rock you've hidden yourself under to not see that, unless of course you're completely for such divisiveness, wanting to cause strife between specific believers and "heathens" so as to have more control over said believers. Going to the positive side of churches, if one wants to run a charity, let them run it as a charity, keeping their religion out of it and so treating it exactly like other non-profit organizations. Having special tax exempt status and allowing their finances to go without oversight simply because they worship one sky-pixie or another is bullshit, because such is not awarded to non-theistic organizations excepting when they follow the strict non-profit guidelines. If, for instance, someone wanted to make an organization exactly like a church, but without the religious beliefs, you can bet your barnacles it'd be taxed. Now tell me, in a country that supposedly has separation of church and state, how is that fair and just? I'll give you a hint: it isn't. Also, do you know why non-theistic non-profits don't do so well? It's because churches have taught their members to avoid such "evil, corrupt, and immoral" institutions. That is why they're avoided. Churches have convinced their followers, through a variety of means, that to give to an "un-godly" organization is practically spitting in their god's face, no matter what the purpose of the organization is. Nice job. Seriously, how can one not see that if religion X has 80-85% of the population, that they can and do influence perception? Fucking DUH! SURE atheists are looked down upon and secular charities etc, when atheists are accepted as "militant" and as "fundie" and as "sinners" and as "hellbound" or "heathen" or "demonic" or "satanic" etc., etc. When all that they do is seen as some insidious plot to destroy the word of god or stamp out religion or kills jesus again or some other dumb assed shit. They put up this wall of defense and label opposition as evil and suspect all that aren't like them of plotting against the rest of society. Bush did that whole, "If you ain't wit' us yer agin us" bullshit because it works to polarize people on what they considerer important issues. But it's rarely that cut and dry and it pushes people to take up sides, mindlessly, as opposed to using reason or even listening to the other side. Notice it doesn't feel like "bush's america" anymore? He's not in power and there is a different attitude that is going on now. The christians affect nearly everything in america based on their numbers.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 16, 2009 7:31:48 GMT -5
Atheist "fundies" aren't shooting anybody, bombing anything, condemning anyone to hell We can only condemn people to an end of existance. I think that might actually scare the religious fundies more.
|
|
|
Post by Spong Habsburg on Mar 17, 2009 12:14:38 GMT -5
There are still fundy atheists.
In fact, you can hold a radical belief in just about anything.
I don't believe that atheism is an exception.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 17, 2009 16:19:42 GMT -5
There are still fundy atheists. In fact, you can hold a radical belief in just about anything. I don't believe that atheism is an exception. Atheism, by definition, is a NON belief. How does one, exactly, "not believe" in a radical fashion?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 17, 2009 18:43:27 GMT -5
There are still fundy atheists. In fact, you can hold a radical belief in just about anything. I don't believe that atheism is an exception. Atheism, by definition, is a NON belief. How does one, exactly, "not believe" in a radical fashion? Atheism, in it's broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities. What's usually understood as strong atheism is the belief that deities don't or can't exist. I've yet to see any example of a radical atheist, but it is indeed a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 17, 2009 19:10:22 GMT -5
Atheism, by definition, is a NON belief. How does one, exactly, "not believe" in a radical fashion? Atheism, in it's broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities. What's usually understood as strong atheism is the belief that deities don't or can't exist. I've yet to see any example of a radical atheist, but it is indeed a possibility. Surely there are some atheists who are insufficiently versed in apologetics to explain their beliefs. And surely some of them are needlessly invective. I think a visit to Encyclopedia Dramatica could give an example.
|
|
|
Post by cosmopants on Mar 17, 2009 19:18:27 GMT -5
"Radical atheism" seems to be a term used interchangeably in the media with "evangelical atheism," which is not the sort employed by Dawkins but simply any expression of atheism at all. You don't have to grab a passing Christian by the lapels and bellow Nietzsche at him - all you have to do to earn the rank of "Radical atheist' is mention your atheism in passing - any subsequent remark you make on the subject, no matter how mildly expressed, will usually be labelled as "strident."
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 18, 2009 3:18:08 GMT -5
Atheism, in it's broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities. What's usually understood as strong atheism is the belief that deities don't or can't exist. I've yet to see any example of a radical atheist, but it is indeed a possibility. Surely there are some atheists who are insufficiently versed in apologetics to explain their beliefs. If you think atheists follow apologetics for their beliefs, then you don't have a clue to what you are saying.
What part of "Don't believe in gods" don't you get? And surely some of them are needlessly invective. And surely vague sweeping statements are leading and pointless...I think a visit to Encyclopedia Dramatica could give an example. I think a visit to a beach will give you a tan. So fucking what?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 18, 2009 3:31:55 GMT -5
There are still fundy atheists. Like who? In fact, you can hold a radical belief in just about anything. So mental illness or irational thought isn't to blame, it is the subject that the sufferer latches on to that is to be held accountable?
So, "radical astronauts" are an issue in the world today because some irrational fuck goes nuts about space travel? The guy who used to call me at my old phone answering job and tell me the same thing every night about how it's important to eat lots of vegetables every day was really a radical vegitarian or miltant health nut, despite he has had brain problems since birth and a stroke just a year ago?
There's nothing to be radical about unless you feel over-explaining how santa isn't real is fundie too. I don't believe that atheism is an exception. I think that's ludicrous. Atheism wouldn't exist if religion didn't. Atheists wouldn't have to explain their lack of faith in bible stories if the bible stories weren't pushed at them as true. Atheists wouldn't be "pissed off" if they didn't have self-righteous people insisting that their unprovable "belief" is 100% true.
If religions would stay out of atheists' business, you'd see a smile on every atheists face.
If someone tries to convince me that our American president is a muslim, or that whales are really fish, or that gods are real and they don't have any more proof than repeating those words, yeah... I'm gonna get pissed off because it's ridiculous and unfounded and only a moron would believe that kind of bullshit without a good fucking reason for it.
Idiocy and rude and pushy assholes DO make me pissed off. That sure as hell doesn't make me a radical/militant/fundie though. I just am not convinced at what the religionist thinks is obvious and true simply because someone told HIM it was obvious and true.
To believe that based on zero evidence, in any other field or subject in the world would make a person appear to be a fool. In religion, the opposite of reality, it is a virtue.
|
|