Originally Posted By ecdc >>My point, and I think SPPH's point, was that the going after religion is getting a bit out of hand when a very innocuous post like #1 - which I read as a celebration of disparate faiths working together - gets immediately turned into a negative in post 2 - simply because there were churches involved!<< I guess my question - sincerely - is, would you consider a thread title that said "Fortunate to be an Atheist" and a description of secular groups coming together to donate to Haiti "innocuous?" Do you think everyone would see it as innocuous? I doubt they would. I think it would be seen as "in your face" while Donny's is called "innocuous." That said, I agree with the tone of your post and can cop to misunderstanding or being sensitive and therefore taking what people were saying the wrong way. I think where we went wrong is I'm speaking about the broader American culture and it sounds like I'm speaking specifically about WE's. I didn't intend for that to be the case. By and large, I think most people are pretty receptive and tolerant of atheists here. Since I transitioned to being an atheist, I really am shocked at how people respond to me, both to atheists in general on the national stage, and to me personally. I see a lot of hypocrisy, I've been the recipient of it, and of poor mistreatment. It's something I never perceived as a believer and yet now am painfully mindful of. It's the age old truth that the majority thinks something is no big deal, while the minority is all too aware of it and thinks it's definitely a big deal. >>I *do* think that in WE in particular, there is genuine animosity toward anyone who professes the Christian faith, or credits it with anything positive. In other words, there's not anything a *believer* can say or do that doesn't piss the *non-believers* off. See again, post 2.<< I think Mr. X is guilty of that and I wish he wouldn't be so snide, condemning, and dismissive. However, in post two, I don't think Dave was doing anything near expressing "animosity." How do you get "animosity" or "pissed off" from "I prefer it when it happens without faith and just as a good community intervention. But either way, awesome job!" Perhaps we're both guilty of reading more into things than we should have? Your way off reading of this seems to prove my point that even expressing a point of view of disbelief is seen as rude. Or in this case, as "animosity."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think that's about right. I agreed with most of post 28, except that paragraph you quoted above. I don't feel (or hold) any animosity from/to ecdc, dave, or the other athiests/agnostics here, and I don't think post 2 was negative. As far as I can see, it was just dave pointing out that religion was not necessary for charity, and he personally preferred things that way, but didn't begrudge those who combine the two either.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***>>I *do* think that in WE in particular, there is genuine animosity toward anyone who professes the Christian faith, or credits it with anything positive. In other words, there's not anything a *believer* can say or do that doesn't piss the *non-believers* off. See again, post 2.<< I think Mr. X is guilty of that and I wish he wouldn't be so snide, condemning, and dismissive.*** I don't think that's fair. I have no problem with religion per se, but I resent wholeheartedly the political ACTIONS of certain organized religions (I've often mentioned Mormons and Catholics but there are others, of course). If my comments are at times condemning or dismissive, it's probably due to my great frustration and anger towards particular sects that do an enormous amount of damage to liberty and freedom. And I do feel that I make an effort to equate what I'm saying and why to the ACTIONS that I have a problem with (perhaps not always, and if so that's my bad). I, too, don't see where all the outrage over post #2 is coming from.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I guess my question - sincerely - is, would you consider a thread title that said "Fortunate to be an Atheist" and a description of secular groups coming together to donate to Haiti "innocuous?" Do you think everyone would see it as innocuous? I doubt they would. I think it would be seen as "in your face" while Donny's is called "innocuous."<< It wouldn't faze me any unless you chose to throw in some digs at Christianity. I applaud the efforts of anyone that's sincerely trying to help the less fortunate, whether they're Athiest or not. I of course can't speak for others on this board. I think it would depend on how they perceived your post, and how feisty they were feeling that day. >>I think where we went wrong is I'm speaking about the broader American culture and it sounds like I'm speaking specifically about WE's.<< Ah, that sounds like the ecdc I know. Thanks for clearing that up, and yes, I do agree that there is animosity against Athiests in many sectors of the broader culture. >>Perhaps we're both guilty of reading more into things than we should have? Your way off reading of this seems to prove my point that even expressing a point of view of disbelief is seen as rude. Or in this case, as "animosity."<< You're right. Animosity is too strong a word in the case of post 2, I agree with that ... especially when the source is davewasbaloo. However, he didn't just say faith wasn't necessary, he said he *preferred* community intervention without faith, which I translated as it would have been better if churches weren't involved. There is a bit of, let's say, negativity there - applauding the works, while nitpicking the source for being who they are. >>Perhaps we're both guilty of reading more into things than we should have? Your way off reading of this seems to prove my point that even expressing a point of view of disbelief is seen as rude.<< Perhaps. And it's discussions just like this one that ought to happen a lot more than they do. It helps avoid way off readings in the future.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Some people are bitter that the compartmentalization of human beings into sects, faiths, nations and other arbitrary categories has resulted in strife the world over. All I am saying is that while it's certainly great your organization did something positive, I continue to distrust your organization and others like it (including Christians and Muslims) with a contemptible suspicion. There's a reason John Lennon's "Imagine" is called one of the greatest songs of all time by many people. However, personally I would not have started that discussion in this thread.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Wow, interesting response. What I meant is charity work is something I DEEPLY believe in, whether it is a church, Rotary, the Masonic lodge, personal or otherwise. My point was exactly that it does not hae to be a faith led thing. And I prefer it when people think it is important without worrying about the religious aspect. That community spirit kicks in. And it was a legit thumbs up from me. THese things are hard work, so it is awesome when it flies. And people wonder why sometimes I can be defensive or a stick in the mud?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And people wonder why sometimes I can be defensive or a stick in the mud?<< Aren't you that jerk that hates toons at Disneyland, the Superbowl, patriotism, and puppies?
Originally Posted By Mr X Davewas relaxing at home under London... <a href="http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/austin2/evil2.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.garnersclassics.com...vil2.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By barboy ///would you consider a thread title that said "Fortunate to be an Atheist" and a description of secular groups coming together to donate to Haiti "innocuous?" /// I don't know...... well, I would find it more innocuous than inflammatory anyway. But at he same time I would find it wholly bizarre: because western faiths mostly encourage donating/helping in accordance with God's wishes whereas atheism doesn't require such giving. There are no 'rules' to being an atheist{other than refuting the existence of an all powerful being(s)}
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> There are no 'rules' to being an atheist {other than refuting the existence of an all powerful being(s)} << I don't actually "refute" it - I just don't spend much time pondering it. And if there is one, I don't imagine it expects me to worship it. Adulation is an earthly trait, not a godly one.
Originally Posted By barboy gadzuux, you look more like an agnostic rather than a straight up atheist.
Originally Posted By Mr X There's not as much difference as you might think. Actually "atheist" really does cover all those bases rather nicely by definition, as a "theist" covers those who believe in gods and a-theist covers those that don't. The assumption that to be atheist means to be virulent or "against" religion is incorrect, and thus one need not spend time "refuting" theology in order to qualify as an atheist. A lack of belief is enough.
Originally Posted By Mr X To clarify, the way that the word "atheist" is bandied about is really unfair. To be a true "atheist" (under currently accepted definitions) one would really have to come out and say "there is no god and the idea of "god" is totally impossible, and furthermore any evidence of "god" is to be rejected". I've yet to encounter an atheist who holds such a viewpoint. Rather, all the atheists I've read about and/or talked to say this..."there is no evidence of divinity". Nothing more, nothing less. Many of them are science-type folks and therefore open minded to ANY possibilities (just check out some of the whacked out stuff they hypothesize about in quantum theory if you want evidence about THAT). They simply claim (correctly) that there isn't a shred of evidence to be found to indicate there are any gods lurking about. So, by generic definition, almost every non-believer is pretty much agnostic. To fit the "atheist" definition religions demand, they'd have to be unreasonable enough and dogmatic enough to insist that any sort of god is impossible, and no evidence to the contrary could possibly change their minds. That's the way theists think, NOT the way "true" atheists do. As an "atheist", I'll say this unequivocally...if God shows up and proves his existence to the world (or does so by proxy), VERIFYABLY, I will reject my atheism immediately and accept the fact that God exists. Now, can you turn the question around and ask it of believers? No. Because they've already rejected any means of verifiable proof or disproof in terms of their beliefs. They believe it, despite all evidence to the contrary, just because. Can any religious person come in here and claim that they will reject their beliefs under any set of circumstances? Thought not.
Originally Posted By barboy Wow X, you took two easy to understand terms(agnostic and atheist) and made them more complicated than need be. Can't we just go with: 'believer': "" there is an all powerful being(s)"" agnostic: ""there might be an all powerful being(s)"" atheist: ""there is not an all powerful being(s)"" And yes I think most who call themselves 'atheist' upon closer inspection really are 'agnostic'.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Can't we just go with: 'believer': "" there is an all powerful being(s)"" agnostic: ""there might be an all powerful being(s)"" atheist: ""there is not an all powerful being(s)""*** We can't go with it, because it's not true. Find me an atheist who says "there is not" rather than simply "there is no evidence of" and I'll happily rescind my complaint. To put it even more bluntly, find me a non-religious person who claims that NO amount of evidence would convince them otherwise, and there you'll have a true "atheist".
Originally Posted By barboy ///So in conclusion Barboy, what was the point of your comment? /// LOL! Are you asking about my response to ecdc or gadzuux(or neither)? Oh and by the way this is a play at your own risk game with me tonight for I have already started pounding Red Horse malt liquor and I am 3 bottles deep since my kickoff at 8pm(my time).
Originally Posted By barboy ///Find me an atheist who says "there is not" rather than simply "there is no evidence of" /// I have one for you but he died in '94 of brain tumor at 26. My best friend went to his death steadfast in his belief ""THERE IS NO GOD"" . He said that stuff the 8 years I knew him and scoffed at believers and agnostics alike. I was far more agnostic so naturally this was a contentious topic(especially during college days) between us fire eating liberal youngsters.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Now, can you turn the question around and ask it of believers? No. Because they've already rejected any means of verifiable proof or disproof in terms of their beliefs. They believe it, despite all evidence to the contrary, just because. Can any religious person come in here and claim that they will reject their beliefs under any set of circumstances? Thought not.<< I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any religion that can't stand up to the discoveries of science isn't much of a religion. If a tenant of one's faith is disproved by science, then it's time to make an adjustment.
