quote:

*Shrug* they very well might not be if you met them in person.

quote:

When one walks into a debate on politics or religion one should probably expect strong positions and discourse to occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
To be honest, I'm not sure how much actual discourse we achieve. Threads often strike me more as a volley of talking points than a true exchange of ideas (which requires a certain vulnerability and openness to rethinking one's own stance).

quote:

Though I do remember a fascinating exchange with your dear self about whether Jesus' attack on the moneychangers in the temple was a hate crime. Still mulling that one over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Atheism requires nothing more than deciding to not accept theism... there is no requirement to accept any other dogma in its place.

I know. [:)]

That said, some of our CM atheists (please note my careful phrasing) have struck me by the fervor with which they seem to advance certain points.

A few examples from over the years:

-- Religious people are stupid/weak/delusional (This is sometimes phrased more gently as "Some people [read: the poor dears] need religion.")

-- Religion has been a largely, even totally, negative force in human history and culture.

-- Religion and science are completely incompatible.

-- Religious people are moral only because they fear hell.

-- Religious people burn to tell others how to live.

-- Religions prey on children.

-- Religious texts must be taken literally.

-- Any member of a religion must agree entirely with every page of its scriptures and every syllable in its creeds.

-- And my personal favorite: Marxism is "really" a religion (a view that might have startled Marx), so the crimes of Stalin, Mao et al. don't really reflect atheism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Atheism requires nothing more than deciding to not accept theism... there is no requirement to accept any other dogma in its place.

I know. [:)]

That said, some of our CM atheists (please note my careful phrasing) have struck me by the fervor with which they seem to advance certain points.

A few examples from over the years:

-- Religious people are stupid/weak/delusional (This is sometimes phrased more gently as "Some people [read: the poor dears] need religion.")

-- Religion has been a largely, even totally, negative force in human history and culture.

-- Religion and science are completely incompatible.

-- Religious people are moral only because they fear hell.

-- Religious people burn to tell others how to live.

-- Religions prey on children.

-- Religious texts must be taken literally.

-- Any member of a religion must agree entirely with every page of its scriptures and every syllable in its creeds.

-- And my personal favorite: Marxism is "really" a religion (a view that might have startled Marx), so the crimes of Stalin, Mao et al. don't really reflect atheism.

I see dc. So, I need food and therefore I am stupid/weak/delusional.

I need sex and therefore I am stupid/weak/delusional.

I personally, need exercise regularly and therefore I am stupid/weak/delusional.

I need intellectual activity regularly and therefore I am stupid/weak/delusional.

I am one of those who believes that many people need religion. Don't put words in my mouth. This does not mean that I think they are stupid/weak/delusional.

If you are choosing to define "need" that way, that is your personal issue. Stop pretending that you know how atheists think when you clearly despise us and stop assuming that your voice represents all those who believe as many from other faiths don't share your perspectives even as listed here. My notes on this thread have been very inclusionary. You've come onto this thread just to be antagonistic. Why am I not surprised by this. Just plain sad. Very, very sad. Look into your heart and ask yourself why you feel the need to antagonize on a thread that is not yours and where many of us have been expressing inclusionary statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Agreed. I think person-to-person contact (even by phone) is much different from a message board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
The lawyer pompously said "We are aware of no such holiday for atheists, just when might that be, your honor?"

The judge said "Well it comes every year on exactly the same date-- April 1st!"

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
True. And I'm not denying anyone's right to strong positions. I'm simply expressing my amusement at (some!) atheists voicing their positions with an evangelical zeal and a tendency toward dogmatism that are stereotypically associated with believers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
To be honest, I'm not sure how much actual discourse we achieve. Threads often strike me more as a volley of talking points than a true exchange of ideas (which requires a certain vulnerability and openness to rethinking one's own stance).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Did she say she was talking about you? I must have missed that part. I thought she was talking about some of the athiests on CM who seem to feel that christians are as described in her post. Are you saying that has never been implied here? No one has ever implied that "religious people who talk to that imaginary guy in the sky" are less intelligent than those who don't? 

quote:

I feel some people need religion, and I feel everyone should keep their faith personal to themselves and not allow their own personal faith to dictate how others in society lead their lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Atheism requires nothing more than deciding to not accept theism... there is no requirement to accept any other dogma in its place.

I know. [:)]

That said, some of our CM atheists (please note my careful phrasing) have struck me by the fervor with which they seem to advance certain points.

A few examples from over the years:

-- Religious people are stupid/weak/delusional (This is sometimes phrased more gently as "Some people [read: the poor dears] need religion.")

-- Religion has been a largely, even totally, negative force in human history and culture.

-- Religion and science are completely incompatible.

-- Religious people are moral only because they fear hell.

-- Religious people burn to tell others how to live.

-- Religions prey on children.

-- Religious texts must be taken literally.

-- Any member of a religion must agree entirely with every page of its scriptures and every syllable in its creeds.

-- And my personal favorite: Marxism is "really" a religion (a view that might have startled Marx), so the crimes of Stalin, Mao et al. don't really reflect atheism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'm simply expressing my amusement at (some!) atheists voicing their positions with an evangelical zeal and a tendency toward dogmatism that are stereotypically associated with believers.

My long friendships and family ties with Atheists incline me to the view that evangelical zeal and dogmatism are about as far removed from Atheism as you can get. And frankly, I don't think those who display these traits are Atheists. I think they're sailing under false colors. Their Atheism is purely contingent. In my experience, they are first and foremost acolytes of a materialistic world view that credits only what can be shown to exist in a concrete and measurable way.

That's a mouthful-and-a-half beyond just being an Atheist.

quote:

You've come onto this thread just to be antagonistic. Why am I not surprised by this. Just plain sad. Very, very sad. Look into your heart and ask yourself why you feel the need to antagonize on a thread that is not yours and where many of us have been expressing inclusionary statements.

quote:

the actions of an oppressed minority to protest and stick up for themselves in the hope that they can get the majority to stop trampling all over them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Though I do remember a fascinating exchange with your dear self about whether Jesus' attack on the moneychangers in the temple was a hate crime. Still mulling that one over.

Ewwww . . . sorry I missed that one [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

the actions of an oppressed minority to protest and stick up for themselves in the hope that they can get the majority to stop trampling all over them.

As a gay guy who's met the business end of a fag-basher's boot, I certainly understand the need for an "oppressed minority" to defend itself in the face of a majority that's "trampling all over them." And here I'll admit a gap in my knowledge: What forms does the trampling of atheists take?

quote:

Just because it isn't on a scale with chattel slavery or genocide, doesn't mean that something isn't oppression.

quote:

What evidence would you like? And from what era?

quote:

The denial of an elected official's Constitutional right to take office unless they swore an oath to the Christian god comes to mind, as does the US military and court systems forcing religious oaths on people for many many years.

quote:

Remaining silent while government policies facilitate the superordinate role of specific religious beliefs might feel like oppression to a Christian in a Muslim country, why wouldn't it be true for atheists in a religious country?

quote:

Today, Atheism is a crime in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia,[25] Pakistan and some other Muslim countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar.

The Christian orders a glass of wine and a thin wafer of bread. After his order is set before him he prays over it. The Atheist asks him what he is doing. The Christian replies "I have transubstantiated the wine and bread into the real blood and body of Christ."

The Atheist says: "Sorry, but I don't see any difference."

The Christian replies: "Well then you are not a true Atheist. You are simply an acolyte of a materialistic world view that credits only what can be shown to exist in a concrete and measurable way."

The Atheist turns to the bartender, orders scotch and water, and says: "Sorry, but I don't see any difference."

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
The denial of an elected official's Constitutional right to take office unless they swore an oath to the Christian god comes to mind, as does the US military and court systems forcing religious oaths on people for many many years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States
In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[41][42][43] The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office.[41][44] In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[41][45][46] This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.[47]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
As a gay guy who's met the business end of a fag-basher's boot, grieved* for Matthew Shepard, and can't legally marry in any but a handful of states, I certainly understand the need for an "oppressed minority" to defend itself in the face of a majority that's "trampling all over them." And here I'll admit a gap in my knowledge: What forms does the trampling of atheists take?

*Then again, it may have been ersatz emotion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1
...a new study out this month finds that Americans are not fond of atheists and trust them less than they do other groups. The depth of this distrust is a bit astonishing nonetheless.

More than 2,000 randomly selected people were interviewed by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years."

Edgell also maintains that atheists seem to be outside the limits of American morality, which has largely been defined by religion.

Many of those interviewed saw atheists as cultural elitists, amoral materialists, or given to criminal behavior or drugs. She states, "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

Of course, it should go without saying, but won't, that belief in God isn't at all necessary to have a keen ethical concern for others.