Unfaith, love and hope

I agree that the selection is biased, but the thing I'm most annoyed with is the fact that they knowingly use techniques that are meant to persuade people in the face of evidence. Casually naming smart people that subscribe to an idea without technically stating that there is a connection is dishonest, and they *must* know that. Surely, there is no way in their hell that they went "but what if we show to the public all the smart people who are religious, that will convince people. But we can't claim there is a connection, that would be refuted, so if we just strongly hint at it, without allowing them to say that we indicate the connection, that would be a scientific argument, right?"?

 

To stand up for what you believe in...is fine. To insult and bully the person who disagrees with you...is not. I have found atheists to be bullies and insulters. They lose control and get mad. Of course there are exceptions.

Its interesting how you defend calling a Christian over so that Jesus can be made fun of. Perhaps its ok for someone to call me over and mock my dad, son or daughter too.

You think its fine for someone to mock and make fun of someone you love?.

Granted Jesus understands that he will always be hated and accepts it. And I do to. But it makes a atheist look pretty bad, petty and mean.

It might do well for them to be more respectful.

 

Well, Ray and Kirk are inherently dishonest. That's no surprise.

Some are bullies, yeah. I've met some myself who claim I'm not "atheist enough" because I don't claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist and because faith alone doesn't bother me, nor do I consider it a virus.

On the flipside, however, it's hard to keep your cool when faced with willful, arrogant ignorance. But I think any person, atheist or theist, can agree with that.

It was not a defense. I apologize, I must have missed the part where you said they were deliberately calling you over. That's absolutely rude and unforgivable and you have every right to be insulted. Please forgive me.

Depends on the context. If they're good friends and it's all just some harmless fun, then yeah. If it's cruel, however, and upsets my loved ones directly, then it's not at all okay and the bully will very likely become closely acquainted with my fist.

Like I said... it depends on the context. In your case, I agree 100% with you.

Agreed.

 

You mistake love for emotion. Although emotion can play a part, the Biblical agape love is more of a choice than emotion. It is also very logical.

 

It can happen the other way....and I get twice as mad. I was part of a forum where Christians were trying to block an atheist. And then the strategy was for ALL Christians to put him on ignore. Not very Christian that. And when a Christian does it, my blood boils.

Ah, yes....I was specifically targeted. And I thought it weird...to be called close minded. I tried to explain that Jesus means so much to me, but he just rolled his eyes and said I was close-minded again. He is what you call.....passionate in what he doesn't believe in.

 

So I see we both share a dislike of bullying, no matter who does it.

Yeah... you can tell him an atheist said he was being a donkey-hole and needs to stop (sarcasm is not intended, here... due to the censorship, I have to find fancy words, which unfortunately undermines my sincerity).

 

I'm not so worried about the fact that there are a**holes of each conviction, that's never going to change, even Buddhism has had its fair share of ignoratos. What I'm interested in is the fact that there really aren't any atheists who even try to do that seriously, when Christianity gets away with filling mega-churches based on it.

 

Let me first respond to this by asking a simple question…….
What is your true motive for being on this forum?

It's unfortunate that there are many sad and lonely atheists on this forum with no other motive than to stroke their ego of superior intellect…

Many religions are filled with concepts of hope, love and peace……. There is also the unfortunate dichotomy where many are also filled with condemning concepts of: worthy and unworthy, righteous and unrighteous, good and evil, fear and hell.

So for the atheist with the time and energy spent arguing with believers, what are they seeking to accomplish?
Why not gently remove and address those condemning portions that are damaging to the mind on a social level; leaving them with the lovely concepts of hope, love and peace for them to grapple with on a personal level?

For me, religion in general is a two headed beast both lovely and foul; you can never be certain which one you will be faced with…….

The atheist in general, mostly just a lonely and sad beast with a foul motive……..

 

I first came to this forum as an atheist, seeking to challenge my standpoint and get a few extra answers. Since then, I've basically stayed on, I've come to know some of the people here, entering discussions mostly when straightforward misunderstandings or untruths. It's hardly a will to show off any "superior intellect", but there's just something that itches when certain arguments are brought up. More along the lines of this.

I could and maybe will write more, but I have to go now and can't be asked to save the text off line, text might be more coherent later.

 

I agree that atheists get themselves perceived in an unfavorable light by being rude (at times I do it myself). I think it mostly happens because of two reasons. First because it such a sensitive subject on both sides but especially for the side of the theist. Insulting someone's beliefs is akin to insulting someone's dead mother, it is most likely not going to be taken favorably or objectively and is something that non-believers should remember if they feel like continuing an amicable discussion with someone about their faith. Secondly I think religious people need to realize how absurd people who are not of their faith may see their religious beliefs. How would you perceive someone who tried to sell you Roman or Greek Mythology as being literally true? So what I am saying is that both are at fault for not being able to view the subject from the other side.

 

See, this just angers me. How is it that theists always claim to know us atheists better than we know ourselves?

I certainly do hold on to hope, love, and peace, even if the face of depressing ignorance and arrogance.

To be fair, part of it may be that for some theists, the very fact that atheists exist is insulting. I've run into this more than once with some fundies. I told one person I was an atheist and she gasped, gave me this absolutely horrible look, and then went and gave me the paragraph on how I've been tricked by Satan and need to be "saved" and how she'll pray for me and all that jazz.

Some of the more fanatical believer just don't like atheists, period, even when those atheists are like S.E. Cupp.

 

and for some atheists the same could be said, that the very existence of theists is insulting. I hear what you are saying, especially on the example you posted. My mother fears for my eternal soul, and is always saying how bad she feels for me in times of trouble of sadness because I have no faith to get me through it. F-ing annoying, however when I take a step back and see that she does this because she loves me and truly feels that my soul is in danger of being eternally condemned to purgatory (at with her its not hell), I soften a bit. Perspective helps.

 

I get that, and yeah, I think you're right.

This reminds me of one of Penn Jilette's online videos when he talked about proselytizing...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w&feature=player_embedded"]Gift of a Bible[/ame]

It's a nice sentiment, except for one problem... there is no truck!

If an imaginary truck is about to hit me, let it! I'm sure imaginary people will flock around my imaginary body, while one of them takes out their imaginary cell phone and dials imaginary 911. And then an imaginary ambulance can rush in to take me to an imaginary hospital, where imaginary doctors can declare imaginary me dead. Then my imaginary family will hold an imaginary funeral at an imaginary cemetery, and cry imaginary tears over my imaginary death.

Meanwhile, back in reality, I will continue to live my life as if I wasn't hit by a truck because... well... I wasn't hit by a truck.

If a person truly see a truck coming to hit me, but there actually is no truck, the problem is not with me.

 

Well, I answered the question earlier, so I'll go on to the rest of the post here.

Most of the time, atheists suffer from the problem I have already mentioned. Atheism doesn't supply anything of its own, it just rejects certain organizations. While there are many atheist organizations that do charity work, an atheist does not necessarily see why his or her charity work or donation should be linked to an organization centred around a statement about god. If I was to give to charity (I do, but I haven't revised my choice of charity in too long, if I did, I think I'd change, but I can't be asked for the moment), I wouldn't pick an atheist organization to do so, I would pick a charity organization with good credentials for charity. For that and similar reasons, atheists tend not to have done anything positive (or anything) in direct connection to their atheism.

However, I think that it would be healthy for the discussion (and even though I don't technically identify myself as an atheist, I don't want the religious side to get any free points in the debate) if atheists could bring the positive message most of them agree with along with them.

To me, atheism is one beast with a foul mouth that eats other, worse, beasts and a nice beast who no-one's seen since it went off to sleep with Yoko Ono.

 

By becoming a group of people, atheists have turned atheism into a definition of who someone is, instead of what someone is not. I don't see atheism as an organization or a group of my people, I didn't sign up for that. If I donate to charity it will be as a fellow charitable human being.

 

which is fine as long as they are not trying to SAVE you from that imaginary truck... <wink>

this goes for both sides, neither needs SAVING from Christianity or Atheism or Muslim-ism or what not ... keep religion separate from gov and were all good

 

And this is the point, get angry all you want; you would be hard pressed to find an atheist position that actually discusses a social ideal for the betterment of humanity. Atheists in general seem content only to bring about a position that simply indulges in destroying a theists belief......

The reality is that intellect could easily develop a much more mindful expression of society that fulfills every life and every mind where it is devoid of the absurd social limits within the assessment of worth, in both the monetary system which creates social stratification of class, as well as the moral hierarchy that is highly condemning which is present within religion......
Many atheists claim to have a superior concept towards the 'meaning' of life, yet demonstrate very little in addressing the expression of humanity by which every life and every mind could be realized.....

Promoting a tangible and superior expression of humanity would realize an exponential growth of potential in both knowledge and beauty..... It would in result, leave any archaic system of belief and expression in it's dust..... Such a vast contrast between the two would only leave such a mind to question the validity of it's beliefs......

You see, we don't actually need to destroy a belief; we simply need to realize an expression of humanity that is much more fulfilling to the mind, which leaves such a belief dumbfounded.

 

I don't mean to be a buzz kill, but to me our 'charitable' organizations are nothing more than a band-aide for a gaping wound.
In an expression of humanity where every life and every mind is realized and nurtured to witness it's fullest potential, would we need charity, or would we be witnessing an incredible abundance?
The way we are living our lives currently is pure insanity, if intellect is unable to identify these absurdities of the mind...... God (if 'he' exists) help us all!

 

There is a brilliance that supersedes all the BS that goes on in this forum.....
The more you project upon another, the less you see of yourself!

 

Neither do I, but we will have evolved into a new species at the very least if that ever occurred, perhaps even a new life form.

 

I disagree with every fiber of my being..... It could be realized tomorrow!

Even the most humble example of such an existence would draw brilliant minds to it in offering..... It's beauty and brilliance would grow exponentially and develop minds that would quickly advance well beyond the brilliant minds that originally payed in to it!
90% of our population simply has their hand in the cookie jar, without a single clue that their true desire of expression has not even begun to be realized.
Supply a mind with actual purpose in expressing it's beauty, it will give back to humanity ten fold!
All we need to do is wake up and place like minds together in order to paint the earth into a canvas of the mind!

Living the way we do is painfully difficult, becoming a free expression of the mind is abundantly effortless!

 

I'm not sure I grasped all of that but, could and will are two very different things. I think you have a far better opinion of our species than most, perhaps an idealism for all of life. Sorry to break it to you but there are lots bad people i.e. not interested in good. What would you do with those sorts to accomplish your utopia?

 

I would leave them in it's wake until it was so brilliant and beautiful that you couldn't gaze upon it, and not be able to see your own beauty within it!

 

Another brilliance of life is that we do not have to place our faith in anything but the brilliance of our own mind, or another mind that witnesses it's own!

 

I don't believe we've had much of a choice. I hesitate to say that we are persecuted in the US because the fact is we don't face any of the problems that persecuted minorities (African Americans, Japanese Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Women, and so on) have faced in the past and, in some cases, still face today.

You don't see or hear about atheists being lynched. There is no "separate but equal" segregation of atheists from the rest of the population (you know... signs over water fountains that say "atheist only" and "non-atheists only", and restaurants with signs that say "we don't serve atheists"). There is no policy that forces atheists to the back of the bus, literally and figuratively.

All that said... for a politician to out himself as an atheist is, with (so far) one exception, political suicide... especially if they happen to be running for President. I've both lost a job and an opportunity for a job because I was an atheist (and I'm not being paranoid... they explicitly told me so). 40% of US-Americans do not believe that Atheists share their vision of the US, and 53% of US-Americans would not vote for an atheist as President.

So... persecuted? Perhaps not. But nationally disliked, perhaps even despised? Absolutely.

The public perception of atheism is dismal. And despite what people say, it's not because of the so-called "Gnu Atheists". The dismal view of non-believers has been around since at least Plato, who said that non-believers (in the Greek gods) should be punished by law.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Victor Stenger... what people don't realize is that all of this is a reaction. It is a reaction to Creationism. It is a reaction to religious fanaticism. It is a reaction to the continued mixing of government and religion. Richard Dawkins did not come first... Pat Robertson did. And that's what people need to remember.

We haven't organized together for the ha or - as Alain de Botton, S.E. Cupp, and other "accomodationists" apparently want us to do - to create a new "Godless religion". We've organized in order to survive. We've organized in order to force people to recognize that we are also citizens of the United States. We've organized because George Bush, Sr doesn't think we should be considered citizens of the United States. We've organized because some people apparently believe that atheism is treason.

This whole organizing... this whole "Gnu" movement... is a reaction. The sooner people understand that, the better.

Because atheism doesn't have to offer anything. Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin. They are not worldviews. All they are are answers to the question "do you believe in God". The theist says "yes", the atheist says "no".

But just as theism has it's many religions, atheism has its many philosophies. I happen to be a Secular Humanist. Now that is a worldview, and, IMO, it offers all that you say atheism fails to offer.

I'm... not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

Wait. You don't know the meaning of life? Haven't you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? It's 42.

And how would you suggest that be done?

BTW... out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Bill Hicks?

Now this I agree with!